IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 413 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29660/2007 Dated 11/12/2007 .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------------- THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (ADMN.), EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. V. SURESH KUMAR (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2. SHRITHAMPY (AGED & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ) POTTAKUZHY JUNCTION, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. SRI.UNNI, S/O THAMPY (AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ) POTTAKUZHY JUNCTION, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Additional respondents 2 and 3 impleaded vide order dated 10-6-08 in I.A.No.292/08 C.C.C.NO.413/08 4. GEORGE SOLOMAN, S/O V.J.SOLOMAN AGED 58, LF-2, 309, VRINDAVAN HOUSING COLONY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. HENRY TERENCE JOSE S/O T.K. JOSE AGED 34, LF-2, 112 VRINDAVAN HOUSING COLONY PATTOM , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. SHAJIN, S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU AGED 39, SANJU NIVAS VRINDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 7. RAVIKUMAR, S/O APPUKUTTAN NAIR RADHIKA TOWERS, VRINDAVAN GARDENS PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Additional respondents 4 to 7 impleaded suo motu vide order dated 25-7-08 BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR FOR R4 TO 7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.C(C)No.413 OF 2008 IN W.P.(c).No. 29660 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Accusation of the petitioner, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is that the respondent-Circle Inspector of Police has willfully disobeyed Annexure A1 and A2 in not ensuring that adequate police protection is granted for the property of the petitioners organisation. The issue is regarding the right of way claimed by the additional respondents and many others through the property of the petitioner. The respondents Circle Inspector of Police has filed an affidavit and it is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit as follows: “In the circumstances without any specific direction from this Honourble Court, this respondent is helpless to give adequate police protection for reconstruction of the old demolished portion of the petitioner's compound wall.” 2. It was in the light of that counter affidavit that the additional respondents who are said to be the functionaries of the CCC.No.413/08 2 association which represents the families which reside in the housing colony in question were impleaded. On getting notice, the additional respondents have filed an affidavit in reply. Inter alia it is stated therein that the additional respondents have neither made any attempt to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner nor prevented the construction of the compound wall, nor instigated others to do so. 3. I have heard the submissions of Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri.D.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the additional respondents and the learned Government Pleader for the original respondent. Having heard the submissions and having considered the pleadings raised, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the original respondent for that matter the additional respondents are guilty of willfully disobeying the orders passed by this court . It is submitted at the bar that the compound wall in question has been completely constructed and that it will not be possible for the occupants of the houses in the housing colony to enter the premises of the petitioner's organisation. 4. Sri.D.Ajith Kumar submitted that his clients will never CCC.No.413/08 3 demolish the compound wall in question nor will they interfere in any manner with the construction or reconstruction of any compound wall by the petitioner organisation for securing their property. I record the above submission and dispose of the contempt of court case without initiating action for contempt. At the same time the original respondent Circle Inspector of Police is directed to render all protection sought for by the petitioner organisation for the purpose of protecting their property either by retaining the compound wall stated to have been constructed or by reconstructing the same even by putting up additional compound walls. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. CCC.No.413/08 4