Disposed

T.M.Sebastian v. Noufal a, Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC11 Aug 2017Con.Case(C)/1338/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding arising from non-implementation of a protection order under WP(C) 20766/2017, the Court closed the current proceedings because the petitioner currently lacks permission to dig a borewell. The Court directed that the earlier protection order would revive immediately upon restoration of such permission.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed as cause arises when permission is restored; previous protection order retained.

T.M.Sebastian Vs Noufal a, Sub Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/20TH SRAVANA, 1939 Con.Case(C).No. 1338 of 2017 (S) IN WP(C).20766/2017

¶7

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :

¶9

T.M.SEBASTIAN

¶10

S/O TITUS MORIS, AGED 72 YEARS, CHURCH VIEW, PERAYAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAMCODE CHERRY, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO

¶12

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT :

¶13

NOUFAL A, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691012.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. -----------------------------------------Cont.Case(C).No.1338 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2017

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶20

1.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, for the present, we close this proceeding.

¶21

2.The petitioner was granted an order by a Division Bench of this Court directing the Police to give him protection to enable him to sink a borewell for which he had obtained permission from the local authorities and ground water department. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to orders of this Court when he approached the Police, they did not offer him any assistance. In the meantime, the 4^th respondent filed a writ petition seeking a direction that the appeal filed by him against the grant of permission to the petitioner may be heard by the authorities. It appears that in that writ proceedings an interim order was passed directing the authorities to ensure that the petitioner does not violate Ext.P5 produced in the writ petition, which was a restriction

¶22

¶23

Cont.Case(C).No.1338 of 2017

¶24

imposed by the Collector during the drought season, which period expired on 31.05.2017. It appears that the permission granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn by the authorities concerned and he is optimistic that the same would be restored. However, as things stand now, he has no permission to dig a bore well.

¶25

3.In view of the aforesaid, we would close these proceedings for the time being because, the cause for the petitioner to sink the borewell would only arise as and when he gets his permission restored. We make it clear that the order of the Division Bench would once again operate as and when permission to dig a well is restored to him and at that stage, if any resistance is offered by any person, the Police would have to give the petitioner adequate protection.

¶26

4.We may note a submission. The petitioner submits that the objector, who is the 4^th respondent in the writ proceedings, himself is operating three borewells in the adjacent property. However, for reasons best known to him, he is objecting to the sinking of the borewell by the petitioner on the ground that it would deplete the ground water. It is for the

¶27

Cont.Case(C).No.1338 of 2017

¶28

¶29

authorities to consider the same.

¶30

With the above observations, this contempt case stands closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH,

¶33

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶36

AV/11/8

T.M.Sebastian v. Noufal a, Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Sebastian v. Noufal a, Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Biju Vs T.K.Jose

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Salim S.H

Chief of Army Staff Vs v.Tulsi Nair

Aleema Vs Dr.S. Jayasankar

Suji v. Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakash

Baiju.Y.P Vs Union of India