Thrikkakara Municipality Rep. By ... vs P.V.Baby
2021 Latest Caselaw 22675 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 13740/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                      KERALA, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

    1     THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY N.K.KRISHNAKUMAR,
          S/O V.K.KUMARAN,
          AGED 45 YEARS, OFFICE OF THE THRIKKAKARA
          MUNICIPALITY, THRIKKAKARA P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-682021.
    2     AJITHA THANKAPPAN
          AGED 49 YEARS
          CHAIRPERSON, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,
          THRIKKAKARA.P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
          KERALA, PIN-682021.

          BY ADV S.JAMAL

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WP(C):

    1     P.V.BABY
          AGED 50 YEARS
          (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)
          THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA,
          KAKKANAD P.O,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.
    2     SHAJU.A.N.
          AGED 45 YEARS
          (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)
          THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION,
          KAKKANAD P.O,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021
                                  2



            BY ADV.
            SMT. PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

      THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION     ON    19.11.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021
                                      3




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021

The petitioners who are the Municipality and the

Chairperson of the Municipality had approached this

Court by filing the present Writ Petition on an

allegation that, under the guise of protest,

respondents 4 & 5 along with several other persons

were obstructing the functioning of the Municipality.

Specific allegations were raised against them, having

entered the Municipal building and ransacked the

office.

2. An interim order was passed by this Court on

09.07.2021, which is produced as Annexure A1.

The operative portion of the order read as follows:

'It seems that the protesters had even entered the

compound, blocked the entrance and had gone even up to the

office rooms. Having considered this, I am inclined to direct

that sufficient police force shall be deployed to ensure that the

entry to the Municipal Office by the elected members, the staff CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

and other persons who visit the office for official purposes

alone are permitted to enter and others are not permitted to

enter. The police shall also ensure that sufficient police is

deployed to ensure that COVID protocol is not violated, that

peace prevails inside and outside the municipal building'

3. The petitioners have now approached with

Contempt of Court case, alleging that on

29.07.2021, the Police who were posted outside the

building and within the compound were unilaterally

withdrawn. Thereafter, there were a series of

incidents. The precise allegation is that by

knowingly and willfully withdrawing the Police force,

on 29.07.2021 the respondents violated the order

of this Court by permitting to perpetuate the

obstructions.

4. I have carefully examined the affidavit filed

by the petitioners in the light of Annexures A4 and

A5 complaints given to the Assistant Commissioner

of Police and the Station House Officer respectively.

However, the above complaints which were given CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

under the direction of this Court, disclose several

acts of the Councilors of the Municipality. The order

of this Court dated 09.07.2021 was against the

actions by outsiders. Even though several

allegations are raised in the above complaints, I feel

that there is no precise allegation that any incident

happened after 29.07.2021 from the respondent

herein as suggested. The order passed by this

Court also does not cover any of the agitation or

any other acts done by the Municipal members. This

Court also did not direct that Police shall be

available throughout but, the obligation of the Police

officers to ensure that peace prevails inside and

outside the Municipal building by proper and swift

action cannot be against the actions of the

respondents herein or their instigation continues.

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted

that pursuant to Annexures A4 and A5 complaint,

necessary action has been taken and crime CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

registered against 14 persons. Having considered

the entire facts and the submission made by

learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to close

the Contempt of Court Case. It is also directed that

the Police shall continue to ensure that the

direction contained in Annexure A1 is complied with,

in future.

The Contempt of Court Case is closed

accordingly.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE SKP/19-11 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1394/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.13740/2021 DATED 9/7/21.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/08/2021.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/08/2021.

ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3-

9-2021 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2-

9-2021 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9-9-2021 IN WPC NO.18498/2021

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE