Aneesh v. Sri.Vineesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/22ND MAGHA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 209 of 2015 (S) -------------------------------------- WP(C) 31122/2013 of THIS HONOURABLE ----------------- PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ANEESH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, CONVENOR INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNIONCONGRESS (INTUC), KUZHIVILA UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAN BABU RESPONDENT/6TH RESPONDENT :

------------------------------------------------- SRI.VINEESH AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THUMBA POLICE STATION, THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006.

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAMKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

Con.Case(C).No. 209 of 2015 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 31122 OF 2013 DT 22/5/2014.

ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 21/1/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH.

ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DT 22/1/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JDUGE bp

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J.

& A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

================================ Cont.Case (C) No. 209 of 2015 ================================= Dated this the 11th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

A.M.Shaffique, J.

This contempt case has been filed alleging that despite the fact that the petitioner had given complaints to the police as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 22.05.2014 in WP(C) No.31122 of 2013, the respondents have not taken any action in the matter. 2.

By the aforesaid judgment, this Court had only directed the police to intervene, if there is any law and order situation. That apart, it was observed that the police has to keep a watch over the area so as to stop any untoward incident which may disturb the tranquility in that area. The respondent police was directed to respond if any complaint was registered reporting any unlawful activities of respondents creating law and order problem.

-2Cont.Case (C) No. 209 of 2015 3.

Apparently, the direction issued by this Court was only to maintain law and order in the area. This Court did not interfere with the rival disputes between two labour unions. Annexure-II complaint does not disclose any law and order situation whereas the demand was that the rival union is not permitting them to have loading and unloading work.

Under such circumstances, we do not think that there is any willful contempt and accordingly, this contempt case is closed.

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE das