SHINE JOSE Vs. SATHISH BINO I.P.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court inter alia complaining about the contempt being committed by the respondent/State. By an interim order dated 28/02/2014 in W.P.(C) No.5896/2014, this Court had directed respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and his employees in collecting the users fee from the public who are using the temporary iron bridge constructed by the Municipality in connection with Sivarathri festival and Trade Festival at the Sand banks of Periyar river at Aluva.

(2.) AFFIDAVITS have been filed by respondents 1 to 3 inter alia stating that, on receipt of the interim directions issued by this Court, police had made necessary arrangements for giving adequate protection. But, despite police orders, large section of people gathered under the Cont.Case No.351/2014 2 leadership of different political parties and conducted a demonstration attempting to obstruct the collection of toll. It is stated that by the timely intervention of the police, the above attempts were defused and three crimes were registered against various persons. As far as crime No.875/2014, charge sheet has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Aluva. The other crimes are under investigation. It is also stated that several of the accused were arrested and they were released on bail. It is further stated that the police party was very vigilant to avoid untoward incident that may occur due to the objection raised by the public against collection of toll from the temporary bridge constructed across the river. Further it is stated that an interim order was passed on 28/02/2014 and on the same day, Aluva police had given adequate and meaningful protection to enable the petitioner to collect toll. However, on 01/03/2014 and 02/03/2014, the petitioner did not turn up for toll collection. The petitioner was assaulted on 01/03/2014 at 4.45 p.m in another place whereas the toll Cont.Case No.351/2014 3 collection commenced from 2.30 p.m on 28/02/2014. It is therefore contended that the police had made all necessary efforts to provide sufficient and adequate protection to the petitioner.

(3.) TRUE that the facts involved in the case would show that though the police party was present at the site and they were ready to provide necessary protection in the matter, there were agitation and demonstration by different political outfits. It is clear from the affidavits filed by the respondents that the police party was unable to control the agitation which was initiated at the instance of several political parties. The police had also taken cases against such persons who were involved in the crime. Ext.R2(a) is a newspaper report which discloses a photograph showing the Cont.Case No.351/2014 4 presence of police at the site on 01/03/2014. All these materials would indicate that necessary action has been taken by the police and therefore it may not be possible for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the respondents were involved in wilful contempt of the directions issued by this Court. It is an instance where the police had taken necessary action, but they were unable to control the large section of people who interfered in toll collection, and consequently the petitioner was unable to collect toll. In these circumstances, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served in proceeding with the contempt case against the respondents. Accordingly, the contempt case is dropped.