Contempt of Court petition filed for non-compliance with a direction. The court examined an order dropping further action against the police officer and observed that no further steps were required, closing the matter.
The contempt matter stood closed; no further steps required against the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
Con.Case(C).No. 1000 of 2013 (S)
----------------------------------------------FROM JUDGMENT DATED 29-01-2013 IN WP(C).NO.2386/2013.
PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:
AURIA KIEM, W/O. CHRISTIAN KIEM, AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX COCHIN AYURVEDA CENTRE AND FORT AYURVEDA, R/AT C.C.1/620, SANTA CRUZ SCHOOL ROAD, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, PIN:682 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.TOM JOSE, SMT.GEETHA JOB(OZHUKAYIL).
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
SRI.PADMAKUMAR IPS, (THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE), S/O LATE PROF. RAJENDRAN NAIR, (AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ROSHEN D.ALEXANDER.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Con.Case(C).No. 1000 of 2013 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/01/2013 IN WP(C).NO.2386/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06/03/2013.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-
| ANNEXURE R1A | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/08/2013 IN WP(C).NO. 10866/2013. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2 | COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMO NO.A1/5751/14 SZ DATED 10/11/2014. |
| ANNEXURE A3 | COPY OF THE EXPLANATION BY THE PETITIONER IN WP(C).NO. 10866/2013. |
| ANNEXURE A4 | COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01/11/2012 FORWARDED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, COCHIN CORPORATION. |
| ANNEXURE A5 | COPY OF THE FIR BEARING NO.1274/12 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION. |
| ANNEXURE A6 | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-5751/2014 SZ DATED 20/11/2014. |
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
========================
C.O.(C). No. 1000 of 2013
-------------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
Non compliance of the direction given by this Court as per Annexure A judgment dated 29.01.2013 in W.P.(C). No. 2386 of 2013 is projected as an instance of offence involving Contempt of Courts case which is sought to be proceeded against. On completion of service, the respondent has filed an affidavit dated 20.9.2013 an additional affidavit dated 16.9.2014 and yet another additional affidavit dated 27.11.2014, paragraph '4' of which reads as follows:
“4. It is submitted with great respect that in deference to the observations and views expressed by this Hon'ble Court, it was decided to continue the proceedings and a memo was issued to Sri. N R Jayaraj, former Circle Inspector of Police, Fort Kochi Police Station seeking explanation for the acts alleged against him by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 2386/2013, Smt. Auria Kiem. For the purpose of reference, a true copy of the Office Memo No. A1/5751/14 SZ dated 10.11.2014 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A2 . To Annexure A2 Memo, the officer submitted an explanation. A true copy of the explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioner in W.P. (C). NO. 10866/2013 is produced herewith and marked as
C.O.C. No. 1000 of 2013
-2-
Annexure A3 . Along with the explanation submitted, petitioner produced copy of complaint dated 01.11.2012 forwarded by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Cochin Corporation. A true copy of the complaint dated 01.11.2012 forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Cochin Corporation is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A4 . It was explained by the Officer that pursuant to Annexure A4, FIR No. 1274/12 of Fort Kochi Police Station was lodged under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 39(b)(d) r/w 121 of the Kerala Police Act. A true copy of the FIR bearing No. 1274/12 of Fort Kochi Police is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A5 . It was also explained by the officer that the vehicle was removed in accordance with law and in compliance of the provisions of the statutes. After going through the explanation and materials produced by the officer who is the Writ petitioner in W.P.C No. 10866/2013 as well as the order of the Human Rights Commission in HRMP No. 6409/2012 dated 17.12.2012, it was found that the Circle Inspector of Police had acted only in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under law by using the powers vested on him by law. The actions of the Circle Inspector of Police is in accordance with law and pursuant to a valid complaint lodged against the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 2386/2013. Therefore, after considering the explanations given by Sri. N R Jayaraj, former Circle Inspector of Police, Fort Kochi it is found that the charges against the Circle Inspector of Police cannot be substantiated and disciplinary action is therefore, not called for. Therefore, by virtue of Order No. A1/5751/2014/SZ
C.O.C. No. 1000 of 2013
-3-
dated 20.11.2014, further action pursuant to the direction of the Human Rights Commission in HRMP 6409/2012 dated 17.12.2012 is dropped, in view of the explanation and materials produced by the officer who was in charge. A true copy of the Order No. A1/5751/2014/SZ dated 20.11.2014 is produced and marked as Annexure A6 .
passed by the respondent/contemnor after considering the concerned person by name N.R.Jayaraj, the former C.I. of Police, Fort Kochi; against whom some observation is made by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, directing the respondent herein to take further action in this regard. As per Annexure A6, it is seen that an exhaustive enquiry was conducted by the respondent who came to a finding that the action taken by the then C.I of Police i.e., Mr. N.R. Jayaraj was only as per the law and order procedure and by using powers vested upon him under law, which hence was within the four walls of law and not assailable under any circumstance. The sequence of events was explained in detail by Mr. Roshan D Alexander, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.
C.O.C. No. 1000 of 2013
-4-
to be pursued against the respondent. The contempt matter stands closed accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge Annexure A6 order, if
aggrieved, in accordance with law.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-compliance with a direction of this Court constitutes an instance of contempt of court and requires further steps.
Whether the actions of the Circle Inspector of Police were within the law and justified, making further action unnecessary.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Auria Kiem
Padmakumar IPS
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
