Thrikkakara Municipality Rep. by Its Secretary v. P.v.Baby

Kerala HC19 Nov 2021Con.Case(C)/1394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed the Contempt of Court case filed by the Thrikkakara Municipality alleging police withdrawal violated an interim order. The Court found no precise allegation of respondent conduct but directed police to continue ensuring compliance with the prior direction regarding office entry and peace. No quasi-magisterial penalty was imposed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt of Court Case is closed; Police directed to continue ensuring compliance with the order in Annexure A1.

Thrikkakara Municipality Rep. by Its Secretary Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 13740/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY N.K.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O V.K.KUMARAN,

¶8

AGED 45 YEARS, OFFICE OF THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, THRIKKAKARA P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-682021.

¶9

2 AJITHA THANKAPPAN AGED 49 YEARS CHAIRPERSON, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, THRIKKAKARA.P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-682021.

¶10

BY ADV S.JAMAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WP(C):

¶12

1 P.V.BABY AGED 50 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶13

2 SHAJU.A.N. AGED 45 YEARS (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶14

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

BY ADV. SMT. PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2021

¶22

The petitioners who are the Municipality and the

¶23

Chairperson of the Municipality had approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on an allegation that, under the guise of protest, respondents 4 & 5 along with several other persons were obstructing the functioning of the Municipality. Specific allegations were raised against them, having entered the Municipal building and ransacked the office.

¶24

An interim order was passed by this Court on 09.07.2021, which is produced as Annexure A1. The operative portion of the order read as follows:

¶25

‘It seems that the protesters had even entered the compound, blocked the entrance and had gone even up to the office rooms. Having considered this, I am inclined to direct that sufficient police force shall be deployed to ensure that the entry to the Municipal Office by the elected members, the staff

¶26

¶27

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶28

and other persons who visit the office for official purposes alone are permitted to enter and others are not permitted to enter. The police shall also ensure that sufficient police is deployed to ensure that COVID protocol is not violated, that peace prevails inside and outside the municipal building’

¶29

The petitioners have now approached with Contempt of Court case, alleging that on 29.07.2021, the Police who were posted outside the building and within the compound were unilaterally withdrawn. Thereafter, there were a series of incidents. The precise allegation is that by knowingly and willfully withdrawing the Police force, on 29.07.2021 the respondents violated the order of this Court by permitting to perpetuate the obstructions.

¶30

I have carefully examined the affidavit filed by the petitioners in the light of Annexures A4 and A5 complaints given to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer respectively. However, the above complaints which were given

¶31

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

under the direction of this Court, disclose several acts of the Councilors of the Municipality. The order of this Court dated 09.07.2021 was against the

¶34

actions by outsiders. Even though several allegations are raised in the above complaints, I feel that there is no precise allegation that any incident happened after 29.07.2021 from the respondent herein as suggested. The order passed by this Court also does not cover any of the agitation or any other acts done by the Municipal members. This

¶35

Court also did not direct that Police shall be available throughout but, the obligation of the Police officers to ensure that peace prevails inside and outside the Municipal building by proper and swift action cannot be against the actions of the respondents herein or their instigation continues.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader submitted

¶37

that pursuant to Annexures A4 and A5 complaint, necessary action has been taken and crime

¶38

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

registered against 14 persons. Having considered the entire facts and the submission made by learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to close the Contempt of Court Case. It is also directed that the Police shall continue to ensure that the direction contained in Annexure A1 is complied with, in future.

¶41

The Contempt of Court Case is closed

accordingly.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/19-11

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1394/2021

¶50

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURE:

¶51

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.13740/2021 DATED 9/7/21.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/08/2021.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/08/2021.
ANNEXURE A4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3- 9-2021 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2- 9-2021 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9-9-2021 IN WPC NO.18498/2021

¶52

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

¶53

TRUE COPY

¶54

P.A.TO JUDGE

Thrikkakara Municipality Rep. by Its Secretary v. P.v.Baby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thrikkakara Municipality Rep. by Its Secretary v. P.v.Baby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reghu a. N. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Adv.P.P.Biju Vs State of Kerala

Smitha S., Vs Harikrishnan .S.

Abhijith G.S Vs Union of India

Molamma Jose Vs State of Kerala

P.M. Anil Kumar Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board