Mary Rose vs Sudheer
2021 Latest Caselaw 19283 Ker

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1480 OF 2021             1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
                  CON.CASE(C) NO. 1480 OF 2021
 ORDER DATED 26.07.2021 IN WP(C) 14741/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                         KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

           MARY ROSE,
           AGED 65 YEARS
           W/O. PLASSY JOY, H.NO. 16/760, KOMOROTH,
           THOPPUMPADY COSY COTTAGE, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM-682005.

           BY ADV P.K.PAMALA



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1,3 & 4:

    1      SUDHEER,
           AGE NOT KNOWN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL
           POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682511.

    2      JOSEPH POOPPADY,
           AGED 71 YEARS
           KARUTHEDAM, MALIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682511.

    3      XAVIER LONAPPAN,
           AGED 45 YEARS
           KARUTHEDAM, MALIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682511.




           SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1480 OF 2021               2

                                   JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case is filed contending that the 1st respondent has

wilfully flouted the interim order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court.

2. When the writ petition had come up for admission, while issuing

notice to the respondents, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to

ensure that law and order is maintained.

3. Mrs. P.K.Pamala submitted that when the petitioner's husband,

her son and workmen went to the property to construct the boundary wall

on 26.7.2021, the date of passing of the interim order, they were obstructed

by the party respondents and though assistance was sought, the 1st

respondent refused to intervene.

4. From the submissions, it appears that the petitioner had already

approached this Court and had filed W.P.(C) No.17389 of 2021 seeking a

direction to the Taluk Surveyor to demarcate the property of the petitioner

herein. This Court had only directed the police to maintain law and order

and had not granted any protection to the petitioner to construct the

boundary wall. The learned Government pleader submits that no incident of

the nature alleged had taken place on that day. There are no materials

before this Court to conclude that a law and order situation had arisen as

contended by the petitioner.

5. The writ petition is still pending and the petitioner may pursue

her remedies in the writ petition. I do not think that any case of contempt is

made out.

This Contempt Case is dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1480/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2021.