Rajendran S. @ Babu vs Smt.Harshita Attaluri Ips on 14 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 651 of 2010(S)


1. RAJENDRAN S. @ BABU, S/O. SEKHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SMT.HARSHITA ATTALURI IPS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SRI.VIJAYAN,

3. SRI.T.B.VINOD KUMAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :14/06/2010

 O R D E R
              J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
                   ------------------------------------------
                    Cont. Case(C) No.651 of 2010
                   ------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

Ravindran, J.

By Annexure-I judgment delivered on 24th March, 2010

in W.P.(C) No.9397 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court

directed respondents 1 and 2 therein who are Superintendent of

Police, Kollam and Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Karunagappally, Kollam to afford adequate police protection to the

life of the petitioner and his wife as and when required. This Court

also directed that the petitioner’s daughter be given police protection

to enable her to appear for the ongoing SSLC Examination.

2. The case set out in this contempt case is that though

this Court had directed the Police to give adequate protection to the

petitioner and his wife, cases have been registered against him and

thereby the respondents have violated the direction issued by this

Court. There is no averment in the contempt case that the Police

Cont. Case (C) No.651 of 2010

– 2 –

have not given protection to the petitioner and his wife. There is

also no case that the petitioner’s daughter could not appear for

the SSLC Examination since no protection was given. The mere

fact that cases have been registered against the petitioner after

Annexure-I judgment was delivered, cannot by itself lead to the

conclusion that the Police have not granted adequate police

protection to the petitioner or his wife. In such circumstances,

we find no grounds to entertain this contempt case. It is

accordingly dismissed.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice

P.N.Ravindran,
Judge
vns