Geetha vs Inspector Of Police

N.Anand Venkatesh, J

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent police for the violation of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.17525 of 2019, dated 04.07.2019.

The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition, on the ground that the petitioner is being harassed by the respondent police in the name of enquiry. The notice of the Court was drawn to the fact that one Anitha had given a complaint against the petitioner and the enquiry is conducted in the said complaint. This Court took that into consideration and directed the respondent police to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353, and not to unnecessarily harass the petitioner.

The present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that subsequent to the orders passed by this Court, the respondent police had given police protection to the above said Anitha and have proceeded to cut down of the cable line, which were put up by the petitioner. Therefore, this conduct of the police, according to the petitioner, amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

The respondent police had filed a counter affidavit in this case. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

"3. I submit that on 27.06.2019, one Tmt.Anitha, W/o.Prakash, No.42A, Durgai Ammal Koil Street, Nochikuppam, Mylapore, Chennai - 4 submitted a complaint stating that on 08.02.2019, she received a sanction order from the Slum Clearance Board for Cable TV connection for Notchi Nagar 1 to 628 residential area. But, the counter petitioners namely Geetha/petitioner herein and Yathosh Kumar, Jagadish Kumar, Santhosh Kumar and Suirya Kugan doing cable TV connection in the said area without getting permission from Slum Clearance Board. So, the said Anitha requested to give protection for doing Cable TV business in the above said area.

I submit that on the same day i.e. 27.6.2019, the Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai sent a letter vide Na.Ka.No.364/A1/Me.Ma.Ka.Ko/2018 to me by stating that they have sanctioned order for cable TV connection to Tmt.Anitha, W/O.Prakash in the Notchi Nagar area. Previously, they had given sanction to one YJS Cable TV/, but the petitioner had illegally run the Cable TV business in the said area. Hence, the Executive Engineer of Slum Clearance Board requested me to provide police panthobasth to disconnect the Cables of YJS Cable TV. I have intimated the order of the Slum Clearance Board.

I submit that as per the request of Executive Engineer of Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board, on 6.7.2019, I have given police protection to the Slum Clearance Board official viz. A.E., E.E. etc.., as our their request dated 27.6.2019."

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner to have the cable TV connections is a subject matter in W.P.No.12444/2019. There was a letter dated 27.06.2019, issued by the Executive Engineer of Slum Clearance Board, directing to give police protection to enable the above said Anitha, to give cable connection in accordance with the licence given to her for a period from 08.02.2019 to 07.02.2020. In line with the request made by the Slum Clearance Board, the respondent police had given police protection. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there was no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and therefore, the respondent police cannot be said to have committed any contempt.

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

This Court has to bear in mind that while dealing with the contempt, this Court has to satisfy itself that there was a wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and if there is a contemptuous disregard to the orders passed by this Court. If this Court is not able to bring the action of the respondent police within this criteria, this Court cannot pass any orders in the Contempt Petition.

In the present case, the police have acted as per the request made by the Slum Clearance Board. It is true that the writ petition challenging the action of the Slum Clearance Board in cancelling the licence given to the petitioner is pending before this Court. However, there was no interim order passed in the writ petition and therefore, the Slum Clearance Board had proceeded further to give licence to the above said Anitha and has also sought for police protection to enable Anitha to lay the cable TV connections. The protection given by the respondent police cannot be said to be a willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent police, the same has to be challenged independently, in accordance with law and the same cannot be dealt with in this Contempt Petition.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint against the respondent police does not amount to willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

In the result, this Contempt Petition is closed.