JOY MATHEW Vs. ANTONY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.

(2.) This contempt application has been filed alleging violation of judgment dated 11.1.2012 in writ petition No. 437/12. This Court by the said judgment has directed that whenever a new contractor is entrusted with the work, effective and adequate police protection be extended to the petitioner, to the contractor who works under him and also to the labourers who are engaged for discharging the work in terms of the contract. The allegation in the contempt application is that on 16th June, 2014 he entered into an agreement with one Biju for cutting and removing of old trees. He submitted that he started the work on 23rd June 2013. Third respondent has trespassed into the petitioner's property and a complaint was made on 23rd June 2014 and 30th June 2014. It is submitted that no police protection was provided, which clearly means violation of the judgment of this Court. An affidavit has been filed by the first respondent wherein in paragraph 7 it has been stated as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contractor Biju never made such a statement as can be seen from the above paragraph.