Ramaraj K. Nair vs K.V. Mohan Kumar and M.C. Mohandas

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This contempt application is filed by a School Teacher complaining that inspite of this Court issuing judgment in 1999 prohibiting public smoking with direction to the District Collectors and the Police to ensure compliance of the judgment all over Kerala, still there is violation and instances of public smoking in Malappuram and Palakkad Districts on account of the failure of the District Collectors in notifying judgment for compliance. In fact, Respondents are District Collectors of Palakkad and Malappuram Districts. At the admission stage Government Pleader took notice and we have heard counsel for the Petitioner and the Government Pleader also.

Government Pleader contended that at this distance of time Petitioner cannot raise complaint against District Collectors for violation of judgment rendered in 1999. He further pointed out that in the normal course all District Collectors would have complied with the judgment and, therefore, violations of judgment, if any, by the public cannot be attributed to the District Collectors. We find force in this contention because if District Collectors have not notified the judgment for compliance by the public and for enforcement by the Police in the event of violation within a reasonable time from the date of the judgment, the persons aggrieved should have approached this Court within a reasonable time for action for contempt. Even though no contempt action is called for against the District Collectors, we feel the judgment has become the law of the land because there is substantial compliance almost all over Kerala. The violations alleged, therefore, should be taken as exceptions and cannot be attributed to the alleged inaction of the District Collectors. The Petitioner also has no case that public smoking is extensive in both Palakkad and Malappuram Districts. So much so, in our view, judgment can be enforced completely by bringing instances of violation to the notice of the Police for taking action for prosecution, failing which Petitioner can approach the higher authorities in Police for taking disciplinary action against Police Officers for their failure to comply with the judgment. In fact, we notice that the Director General of Police is made a party in the judgment and this Court specifically directed the D.G.P. to instruct all Police authorities to enforce the judgment. We, therefore, dispose of the Contempt case with direction to the Police authorities to ensure that those who violate the judgment by smoking in public are prosecuted. If there is inaction on the part of the Police, it is for the Petitioner or any person to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities for initiating appropriate action including disciplinary proceedings.