High Court Kerala High Court

Babu John vs S. Sreejith on 18 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Babu John vs S. Sreejith on 18 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 891 of 2007(S)


1. BABU JOHN, S/O. JOHN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S. SREEJITH, I.P.S.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.B. VIJAYAN,

3. SAJU JOSEPH,

4. SHAJAHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANU

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :18/07/2007

 O R D E R
                           H.L.DATTU, C.J.   &   K.T.SANKARAN, J.

                                   ------------------------------------------

                                     Cont. Case (C) No.891 of 2007

                                  ------------------------------------------

                           Dated, this the   18th    day of July,  2007


                                          JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

Alleging that the respondents have disobeyed the orders and directions

issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7902 of 2006 dated 31st March, 2006, the

complainant is before us in this contempt petition.

2. The respondents are served with the notice issued by this Court.

The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit.

3. This Court while disposing of the writ petition has issued the

following directions:

“In view of the above, it is necessary that petitioner will

have to abide by the conditions imposed by the R.D.O. while

levelling the land. So long as he is adhering to the conditions

stipulated by the R.D.O. there cannot be any obstruction from

the party respondents. In case there is any obstruction, petitioner

shall inform the police authorities whereupon police shall inspect

the property and give necessary protection to level the land

strictly subject to the conditions imposed by the R.D.O. ”

4. The third respondent in his counter affidavit has stated as under:

“3. It is respectfully submitted in compliance with the

above direction, sufficient police protection has been granted to

the Petitioner at all times as requested to by the Petitioner.

Though there have been strong protests in the locality against the

operations conducted by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was able to

carry on his work unhindered, solely on account of the protection

granted to him by the police. In spite of the severe protests on

11.5.2007, 21.05.2007 and other dates, with the help of sufficient

police force the Petitioner had carried on with his work. When the

protestors went out of hand on 01.06.2007 objecting to the

operations conducted by the Petitioner in his land, Crime

148/2007 of the Karukachal Police Station has been registered

against the offenders under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447,

506, 294(b) and 188 IPC. Therefore it is respectfully submitted

that there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the Petitioner

that he had not been afforded police protection in compliance with

the direction of this Hon’ble Court and that contempt of this

Cont.Case (C)No.891/2007

2

Hon’ble Court has been committed. All the allegations of the

Petitioner in that regard are baseless, false and hence denied.

4. When the protest against the work carried on by the

Petitioner became widespread and persistent escalating to a

situation of breach of peace in the area, the 4th respondent herein

viz; the S.I. of Police, Karukachal submitted a report dated

22.05.2007 before the R.D.O. Kottayam under Sections 133 (1)

(e) and 144 Cr.P.C. That apart a mass petition dated

23.05.2007 was also submitted by the local residents before the

R.D.O. Kottayam complaining about the operations conducted

by the Petitioner in his property. In such circumstances, the

R.D.O. Kottayam issued Order No.K.1265/05 dated 04.06.2007

prohibiting the Petitioner from removing earth from his property.

A true copy of the said Order is produced herewith and the same

may be marked as Annexure R1. True English translation of

Annexure R1 Order is also produced herewith and the same may

be marked as Annexure R2.”

5. After careful consideration of the plea made by the complainant and

the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, we are of the opinion that

there is neither deliberate nor wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this

Court by the respondents. In that view of the matter, we decline to take

cognizance of this contempt petition. Accordingly the proceedings are dropped.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(K.T.SANKARAN)

JUDGE

vns