Rabeesh R vs Shams
2024 Latest Caselaw 14414 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14414 Ker
Judgement Date : 31 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Rabeesh R vs Shams on 31 May, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

CON.CASE(C) NO. 846 OF 2024              1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
       FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                              CON.CASE(C) NO. 846 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.25444 OF 2023 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
          RABEESH R
          AGED 41 YEARS
          S/O. T.P. RAGHAVAN, RASNALAYAM, CHEEKKILODE P.O.
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673315

               BY ADVS.
               N.M.MADHU
               C.S.RAJANI
               SARAH ZACHARIAH


RESPONDENT/S:
     1    SHAMS
          AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE DEPUTY
          SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR, TIRUR P.O.,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101

      2        SUJITH KUMAR
               FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE
               STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN - 679577

               BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA,
               SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP


       THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 846 OF 2024             2




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                      --------------------------------------
                    Cont. Case (C.) No. 846 of 2024
                                        in
                      W.P.(C) No. 25444 of 2023
                      --------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024



                                 JUDGMENT

This contempt case is filed alleging violation of Annexure-

A1 judgment. The petitioner earlier filed a contempt case and

the same was disposed of by this Court as per Annexure-A2

judgment. It is submitted that even now, there is violation of the

order. When this contempt case came up for consideration on

27.03.2024, this Court directed the respondents to file an

affidavit. An affidavit is filed and the relevant portion of the

same is extracted hereunder :

"3. It is humbly submitted that on getting the aforesaid Judgment Ponnani Police had provided adequate Police protection to the petitioner for collecting toll at the Harbour. Since the people/ consumers in the Ponnani Harbour area are very sensitive, presence of Police were assured always by

mobile patrol, beat patrol and bike patrol and the same continuing.

4. It is also submitted that the Fishing harbour is located almost near by Ponnani Police station. The coastal and harbour area is characterized by significant political tension, warranting continuous vigilance and robust security measures. Adjacent within this region lies the famous tourist destination, "Nilayora Patha," in close proximity to the Ponnani harbour. Consequently, stringent police surveillance and patrols are maintained round-the-clock to ensure the safety and security of these areas. There are no issues between harbour toll staff and consumers so far. Consumers are entering inside the harbour are paying tolls and no issues are reported in this regard.

5. It is submitted that, the petitioner submitted the complaint to the station and superiors, concerns have been raised regarding the operational management of the harbour, alleging financial losses. It is apparent that these complaints were strategically filed with the intention of advocating for an extension of the contract period for the harbour's operations."

2. The petitioner disputed the averments in the counter

and handed over a pen drive to show that there is problem in

collecting toll. It is submitted by the Government Pleader that

the respondents verified the same and submitted that almost all

vehicles are giving toll and there is no violation as stated by the

petitioner. This Court cannot monitor the collection of toll based

on Annexure-A1 judgment. If the period of Annexure-A1 is in

force for a period of two weeks, the respondents will depute a

CPO in the toll both during day time to see that the directions in

Annexure-A1 judgment is not violated. The petitioner will make

arrangements to stop the vehicle and if there is any obstruction

from anybody, the Police officer will interfere.