IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 815 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MANIYAMMA RAJAPPAN
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O LATE K.K.RAJAPPAN, KAPPUMCHALIL, CALVARI MOUNT,
KALYANATHANDU, THANKAMANI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685515.
BY ADV VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHRI.AJITH
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
PRESENTLY FUNCTIONING AS:
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THANKAMANI POLICE STATION,
THANKAMANI, IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN - 685515.
2 THE VANA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI (VSS)
ECO TOURISM CENTRE, CALVARY AMOUNT,
KALYANATHANDU, THANKAMANI VILLAGE,
IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CONVENER/SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
No Advocate
SRI.T.P.SAJAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO.815/2022 2
JUDGMENT
This Contempt of Court Case has been filed by the petitioner with a specific allegation that, in spite of the directions in the judgment, the 2nd respondent - Vana Samrakshana Samithi and his men are obstructing the customers to her shop with impunity.
2. Noticing the afore allegations in this contempt case, I called for a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kattappana, who has furnished the same, dated 18.06.2022, making the following averments:
"As per the directions from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala I had personally visited the Eco Tourism Center on 09.06.2022 and conducted an enquiry into the allegations raised by the petitioner by assessing the ground reality, questioning the workers of Vana Samrakshana Samithi, petitioner, visitors/tourists available in the Eco Tourism Centre. It was revealed that the workers of Vana Samrakshana Samithi were deterring the customers and vehicles from entering into the premises of the petitioner also canvassing the tourists but the petitioner not canvassing the tourists. This mostly done on holidays when the inflow of tourists were high. To resolve the issue I had given necessary directions to Inspector SHO Thankamany to conduct frequent patrolling throughout the area and also directed him to depute two Police personnel fro duty on holidays and vacation seasons. It may kindly be noted that at present, the issues between the petitioner and the respondent are only on the basis of business disputes."
CON.CASE(C) NO.815/2022 3
3. Since the report of the afore Police Officer speaks in favour of the petitioner and her allegations, I summoned the 2 nd respondent, through order dated 21.06.2022, and he is present before this Court today.
4. Sri.T.P.Sajan - learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent, submitted that the afore report of the Police Officer appears to be under a mistaken notion because, what the 2 nd respondent and his men did, or was doing is only to control the traffic in the road leading to the petitioner's shop because it is a steep one and can accommodate only one way movement. He submitted that, apart from this, his client or the officers under them have not stopped customers or vehicles from entering into the premises of the petitioner and that such will not be done in the future either. He submitted that this undertaking can be recorded by this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that this undertaking may not be sufficient because, in spite of the specific orders of this Court, the 2 nd respondent is still acting confutatively and in blatant violation of the same.
6. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the petitioner CON.CASE(C) NO.815/2022 4 on the afore lines and feel it justified, looking at the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, I deem it appropriate to close this contempt case, recording the afore undertaking of Sri.T.P.Sajan, since it has been made by a responsible counsel of this Court.
In such circumstances, I close this contempt case; however, cautioning the 2nd respondent not to act in any manner in violation of the directions of this Court; with a further direction to the 1st respondent - Station House Officer to ensure that the traffic through the road in question is kept deconjested and to view the actions of both parties in this case and maintain law and order as ordered by this Court.
Needless to say, I also leave liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again with a fresh contempt case, if any further violations are found.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/7.7 CON.CASE(C) NO.815/2022 5 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 815/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2021 IN W.P. (CIVIL) NO.28910/2020 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THANKAMANI POLICE STATION DATED 05.01.2022 Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THANKAMANI POLICE STATION DATED 26.03.2022