IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 688 of 2010(S)
1. MR. BOBY SEBASTIAN, S/O.E.K.SEBASTIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR. R.RAJESH, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SATHISAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
------------------------------------------
Cont. Case (C) No.688 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ravindran, J.
By Annexure A1 interim order passed on 3.2.2010 in
W.P.(C) No.2450 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court directed
the respondents therein including the respondent in this contempt
case to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner if any
obstruction is caused for the construction of Mobile Base
Transceiver Station. This was subject to the rider that the order will
operate only if there is no prohibitory order issued by any statutory
authority or competent civil court.
2. This contempt case is filed alleging that the
respondent who is the Sub Inspector of Police having jurisdiction
over the area where the petitioner is constructing the Mobile Base
Transceiver Station has failed to afford police protection in gross
Cont. Case (C) No.688 of 2010
– 2 –
disregard to the orders of this Court.
3. We have perused Annexure A2 lawyer’s notice.
We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on
record. The interim order passed by this Court was to afford
police protection in case any obstruction is caused to the
construction of Mobile Base Transceiver Station. The petitioner
has no case that after the said interim order was passed any
obstruction was caused to the construction of the Mobile Base
Transceiver Station, that such obstruction was brought to the
notice of the police authorities and that even thereafter, the
police failed to act. In Annexure A2 lawyer’s notice which was
sent nearly two months after the interim order was passed, the
petitioner has not referred to any act of obstruction by anyone of
the party respondents in the writ petition. In the contempt case
also, such particulars are singularly absent. This Court did not
by Annexure A1 order direct the Police to stand guard
throughout, while the construction is in progress. The
Cont. Case (C) No.688 of 2010
– 3 –
direction was to afford police protection if anyone causes
obstruction to the construction. The sine qua non for grant of
police protection is an act of obstruction by the party
respondents in the writ petition or someone else. Since the
petitioner has failed to prove that any such obstruction was
caused, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be
found guilty of having violated the order passed by this Court.
The Contempt Case fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge
vns