High Court Kerala High Court

C.V.Gireesh Kumar vs Balakrishnan on 12 January, 2007

Kerala High Court
C.V.Gireesh Kumar vs Balakrishnan on 12 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 1579 of 2006(S)


1. C.V.GIREESH KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BALAKRISHNAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. C.H.RAVEENDRAN,

3. P.K.BALAKRISHNAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

 Dated :12/01/2007

 O R D E R
           V.K. BALI, C.J.   &   M.RAMACHANDRAN, J.

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

                  Cont.Case (C) No.1579 of 2006

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

             Dated, this the   12th  day of  January,  2007


                                  JUDGMENT

V.K.Bali,C.J.(Oral)

The direction stated to be not being complied with given

by order dated 24th October, 2005 in W.P.(C) No.28897 of 2005

reads thus:

“This is a petition for police protection. On

14.10.2005 we have issued a direction to the police

to see that if petitioner is an employee, not

suspended from service, his entry into the temple

shall not be prevented. On instructions, learned

Government Pleader submitted that people who are

obstructed were called to the police station and they

signed an undertaking that they will not create any

obstruction. Therefore, police is directed to give

sufficient protection as and when necessary.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”

2. On instructions, Mr.T.B.Hood, learned Government

Pleader, states that the occurrence took place at a time when

the two constables deputed to protect the petitioner happened to

be away as they were to go to the Police Station, as otherwise,

Cont.Case ) No.1579/2006 2

protection was provided to the petitioner on that day itself and

that is being continued to be provided with. In view of the

statement made by the learned Government Pleader which is not

refuted, we do not think that any contempt has been made.

This contempt case is closed.

V.K. BALI,

CHIEF JUSTICE.

M.RAMACHANDRAN,

JUDGE.

vns