IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1472 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8414/2004 Dated 17/03/2004) .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. MOORKOTH JANU, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, MOORKOTH HOUSE, KADIRUR AMSOM, PULLIODE DESOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SAJEEV MOORKOTH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, MOORKOTH HOUSE, KADIRUR AMSOM, PULLIOD DESOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- MR.R.FAYAZ, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADIRUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT © CASE No. 1472 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 8414 OF 2004 ......................................................................... Dated this the 14th July, 2011 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: The petitioners have approached this Court alleging contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent with regard to granting of police protection to the life of the petitioners pursuant to the judgment dated 17.03.2004 in W.P.(C) No.8414 of 2004. The judgment reads as follows: “If there is threat to the petitioners life, the 3rd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, shall render necessary protection. It is made clear that this direction for protection shall not make the petitioners in an advantageous position in the property dispute.” 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of the specific direction given by this Court, the protection was unilaterally withdrawn by the police after 2009, which made the petitioners to approach this Court in November, 2010. 3. Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court, the CONTEMPT OF COURTS © CASE No. 1472 OF 2010 2 respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit, wherein the sequence of events has been narrated in detail. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said affidavit are relevant and hence are extracted below: “On 23.11.2010, the 1st petitioner lodged a petition in the Kadirur Police station, stating that Moorkoth Kunhappa and others threatened her. The case SC.nO. 225/07 of the Addl. District Sessions Court (Adhoc 111), Thalassery had been posted on 29th and 30th November,2010. I had assured the petitioners of necessary police protection for attending the court. And from 23.11.2010, I sent frequent beat officers, Night check officers and Mobile patrols to Moorkoth Tharavad for the protection of the petitioners. On 29th morning ASI Chandran and duty personnels were deployed with Police vehicle for the escort of the petitioners to attend the court for trial. when he reached the Moorkoth tharavad at 08.15 hrs, the 1st petitioner was not found there. On enquiry, one Radhamani, daughter of the 1st petitioner who is residing in the same house told him that the 2nd petitioner took her to hospital and admitted her there CONTEMPT OF COURTS © CASE No. 1472 OF 2010 3 due to old age illness. The ASI also conducted enquiry in the neighbourhood and learnt it was true. A police constable was deployed to aid prosecution duty and he reported that the petitioners in this case were absent and the case has been posted to 15.03.2011. 7. The Kadirur Police has provided personal security officers to the petitioners from 2003 to 2009, without any fees, even though an order in GO(MS) No.58/04/Home/Thiruvananthapuram dated 17.02.2004 H9ome (E) Department for charging of fees is existing. Now there is no physical threat to the life of the petitioners. However security of the petitioners is being ensured by frequent mobile patrolling, foot patrolling, provisions of patta books etc. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submissions made from the part of the petitioners, seeking for continued protection, even after '5 years' with reference to the verdict passed by this Court. As made clear by this Court while passing the judgment in the writ petition, it is made clear that the direction for protection shall not make the petitioners in an advantageous position with CONTEMPT OF COURTS © CASE No. 1472 OF 2010 4 regard to the property dispute (pending between the petitioners and the 4th respondent in the writ petition, who are close relatives). That apart, the concerned verdict was passed by this Court as early as in March, 2004 and admittedly, the Contempt Case has been preferred only in November, 2010. The law stands declared in crystal clear terms by a Full Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in 2007(2) KLT 171 (FB) (Damodaran vs. Cherkalam Abdulla )holding that no contempt proceedings will lie, if the cause of action is beyond the period of one year, by virtue of the mandate under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the above circumstance, we find that there is no merit in the Contempt case and it is dismissed accordingly. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk