IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con Case(C) No. 638 of 2007(S)
1. C.D.CHACKO, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.ISHITHA ROY, I.A.S.,
... Respondent
2. SREEDHARAN P.
3. RAJAN.K., RANGE OFFICER,
4. GANESH KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :26/06/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------
Cont.Case (C) No.638 of 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
Alleging that the respondents in this contempt petition have disobeyed
the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5985 of 2007
dated 1st March, 2007, the petitioner in the writ petition has filed this contempt
petition. In the petition he requests us to initiate appropriate contempt
proceedings against the respondents and punish them for their so called wilful
disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court.
2. This Court while disposing of the writ petition had observed as under:
“This is a petition for police protection. The petitioner wants
to get police protection to collect cashew nuts. In spite of service
of notice by special messenger, there is no appearance for the
contesting respondents. Govt. Pleader submitted that as and
when necessary, protection can be granted and at present there
is no problem. In the absence of any prohibitory orders against
the petitioner, the petitioner should be given protection as and
when required. The petitioner and his workers should be given
protection to collect cashew nuts. Whenever problem arises, the
petitioner may request the local Sub Inspector of Police for
granting protection.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.”
3. According to the petitioner, though he had lodged a complaint with
the Sub Inspector of Police for granting protection, the Sub Inspector has not
come to his rescue. Petitioner has further stated that he had also approached
the District Collector, Kannur. Petitioner has produced two documents before
us. The first one is the complaint lodged before the Sub Inspector of Police,
Aralam and the second one is a complaint lodged before the District Collector,
Cont.Case (C)638/2007 2
Kannur. Petitioner has not stated as to whether those complaints have been
received by the concerned respondents. In our opinion, before approaching
this Court for appropriate relief, if for any reason the respondents do not comply
with the orders and directions issued by this Court, the party has necessarily to
approach the superior authorities and if they fail there also, then only they can
request this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution. In that view of
the matter, the contempt petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the superior
authorities for implementing the orders and directions issued by this Court in
the aforesaid writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.T.SANKARAN)
JUDGE
vns