Kerala High Court
Shaji Mathew vs Sumith Kumar on 25 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TH
TUESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 56 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SHAJI MATHEW
AGED 51 YEARS
SON OF T.J. MATHEW,
AGED 51 YEARS,
THEKKEDATH HOUSE,
VILAKKUMADAM, POOVARANNI P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686577
BY ADV BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
SUMITH KUMAR
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION, THIRUVAMBADI P.O.,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673603
BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SRI AS DEERAJ GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 56 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of the directions
issued by this Court in the interim order dated 05.08.2021.
2. When the matter had come up for admission, this Court had
recorded the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the party
respondents that they do not intend to interfere with the functioning of the
quarry run by the petitioner or to obstruct/threaten the petitioner or its
workers. It is also ordered that, in violation of the undertaking, if any
interference is caused, the petitioner was directed to report the matter to the
respondent herein, who was ordered to act immediately and to ensure that
the functioning of the establishment is not hindered in any manner by the
party respondents.
3. The petitioner asserts that, despite the interim order, the
respondents on 17.12.2021 assaulted the petitioner and the employees of the
association. It is contended that the respondent has wilfully flouted the
directions issued.
4. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get specific
instructions in that regard.
5. A detailed statement has been filed by the Inspector of Police,
Thiruvambadi Police Station, the respondent herein. In the statement, it is
CON.CASE(C) NO. 56 OF 2022
stated that in respect of the incident which took place on 17.12.2021, a crime
was registered and the final report has been laid before the Jurisdictional
Court. It is further stated that from 17.12.2021, the quarry is not functioning
and it is in the afore circumstances, that the protection was not granted. It is
also stated that as and when the quarry starts functioning, the protection as
ordered by this Court shall be granted and the directions shall be
scrupulously complied with.
6. Smt. Smitha Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
asserts that the statement made by the Inspector of Police that the quarry is
not functioning from 17.12.2021 is not correct.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the directions issued in
the interim order has not been complied with. I find that a crime has been
registered and final report has also been laid. The respondent has also
undertaken that the directions in the order shall be complied with in its letter
and spirit. In that view of the matter, I do not think that any case of
contempt is made out. The writ petition is still pending and the petitioner can
very well pursue the matter and get the relief prayed for by him.
This Contempt Case is Closed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
PS/25/1/2022
CON.CASE(C) NO. 56 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 56/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN
W.P.(C)NO.14877/2021 DATED, 5-8-2021
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY ONE
JITHIN P.C., DATED, 17-12-2021
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME
NO.596/2021 OF THE THIRUVAMBADI POLICE
STATION DATED, 17-12-2021
