IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 168 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7841/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC. ------------------------------------- THOMAS , S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 46, MANKUZHA HOUSE, CHERUKUNNAM KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ASAMANNOOR PO, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.ARUN ALEX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 3,4,& 6 IN THE WPC. ---------------------------------------------- 1. CHRISTIN SAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. SHIBU KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. A.V.ELDHO, LOCAL COMMITTEE SECRETARY, CPI(M) LOCAL COMMITTEE OFFICE, CHERUKUNNAM, PERUMBAVOOR. BY SR.G.P.SMT.K.MEERA FOR R1 & R2 SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR R3 SRI.S.KANNAN FOR R3 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.168 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. This contempt case is filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that respondents 1 and 2 who are the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police respectively of Kuruppumpady Police Station and the third respondent who is the leader of a trade union, have violated Annexure A3 judgment of this Court. The petitioner contends that in violation of the directions of this Court, respondents 1 and 2 declined to afford police protection to him when there was interference by the third respondent and others. 2. As directed by this Court, the first respondent has filed an affidavit dated 17.3.2010. He has categorically stated therein that as directed by this Court he has given adequate police protection to the petitioner and that at present there is no labour dispute. He has also referred to a complaint filed by the third respondent before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruppumpady Police Station stating that the petitioner is engaging outsiders like lorry/auto drivers for doing the loading and unloading work in his shop contrary to the submissions COC.No.168/2010 2 made in this Court. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed a complaint on 21.1.2010 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruppumpady Police Station alleging that the third respondent and his men manhandled and threatened his driver. It is stated that on enquiry the said complaint was found to be false. Reference is also made to another complaint made by the petitioner that the third respondent manhandled one T.I.John who had come to the petitioner's shop to bring cattle feed. The first respondent has stated that on enquiry the said complaint was also found to be false. The third respondent has filed an affidavit dated 20.3.2010 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. He has also denied the allegation that he had gone over the petitioner's shop and caused obstruction to the functioning of the shop. We heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. After hearing the submissions made at the Bar, we are satisfied that respondents 1 and 2 have given adequate police protection to the petitioner and that there was no failure on their part in complying with the directions issued by this Court. We also find no merit in the allegation made by the petitioner against the third respondent. We accordingly hold that no grounds have been made COC.No.168/2010 3 out to proceed further with this contempt case. It is accordingly closed. J.CHELAMESWAR Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS