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 THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 688 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------ (AGAINST ORDER DATED 3.2.2010 IN WP(C) NO.2450/2010) PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- MR. BOBY SEBASTIAN, S/O.E.K.SEBASTIAN, AGED 41 YEARS,CIRCLE HEAD INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD. NO.42/1327 (1), 2ND FLOOR, V.S.ARCADE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, OPP: POWER HOUSE, KACHERIPADI, COCHIN-682018. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- MR. R.RAJESH, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (STATION HOUSE OFFICER), PUTHENKULAM POLICE STATION, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.688 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. By Annexure A1 interim order passed on 3.2.2010 in W.P.(C) No.2450 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents therein including the respondent in this contempt case to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner if any obstruction is caused for the construction of Mobile Base Transceiver Station. This was subject to the rider that the order will operate only if there is no prohibitory order issued by any statutory authority or competent civil court. 2. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent who is the Sub Inspector of Police having jurisdiction over the area where the petitioner is constructing the Mobile Base Transceiver Station has failed to afford police protection in gross Cont. Case (C) No.688 of 2010 - 2 - disregard to the orders of this Court. 3. We have perused Annexure A2 lawyer's notice. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The interim order passed by this Court was to afford police protection in case any obstruction is caused to the construction of Mobile Base Transceiver Station. The petitioner has no case that after the said interim order was passed any obstruction was caused to the construction of the Mobile Base Transceiver Station, that such obstruction was brought to the notice of the police authorities and that even thereafter, the police failed to act. In Annexure A2 lawyer's notice which was sent nearly two months after the interim order was passed, the petitioner has not referred to any act of obstruction by anyone of the party respondents in the writ petition. In the contempt case also, such particulars are singularly absent. This Court did not by Annexure A1 order direct the Police to stand guard throughout, while the construction is in progress. The Cont. Case (C) No.688 of 2010 - 3 - direction was to afford police protection if anyone causes obstruction to the construction. The sine qua non for grant of police protection is an act of obstruction by the party respondents in the writ petition or someone else. Since the petitioner has failed to prove that any such obstruction was caused, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty of having violated the order passed by this Court. The Contempt Case fails and it is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns