Maniyamma Rajappan vs Shri Ajith
2022 Latest Caselaw 8910 Ker

              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."

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

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

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