IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13857 of 2009(B)
1. DR.K.M.ASHIK,MANAGING PARNTER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, VELLAYIL
... Respondent
2. THE C.I.OF POLICE
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
4. THE KAMBURAM VANITHA PARISTHITHY
5. SMT.SREEJA
For Petitioner :SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :25/05/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
Writ Petition (C) No.13857 of 2009-B
——————————————————–
Dated 25th May 2009
Judgment
RAMAN, J.
Heard. This is a petition filed by the Managing partner of
M/s.Pentagon Builders praying to issue a writ of mandamus to
respondents 1 to 3 to afford necessary protection for the safe
transit, ingress and egress of materials, men and machinery to
the work site referred to in Exts.P1 and P2. It is the case of the
petitioner that he has obtained the necessary building permit
from the Corporation of Kozhikode as evidenced by Exts.P1 and
P2. They have also put up a safety wall surrounding the site
before the commencement of the building as required in Ext.P1.
However, when they started the construction work and
arrangements were made thereto, the 4th respondent samithy
caused obstruction by gathering in large numbers and stopping
the vehicles. Despite complaint made to the police, no action
was taken. Hence this writ petition for police protection.
WPC 13857/09 2
2. Respondents 4 and 5 appeared and filed counter
affidavits. It is their case that the society is registered under the
Societies Registration Act and the 4th respondent is the
president of the said society. The very purpose of the formation
of the society is to protect the environment. According to them,
the permit itself was granted for construction in violation of the
provision relating to protection coastal areas and according to
them, the proposed building is only 100 metres away from the
beach. Further, on account of JCB operations at the site, 18 of
the nearby residences were damaged and on complaint being
made, the Corporation caused to conduct an inspection. There
is a protest against the construction activities. According to
them, the multi-storeyed construction like the one carried out by
the petitioner between the residence of the local fishermen and
the beach will have the impact of fishermen loosing easy access
for fishing operation. This is the sum and substance of the
grievance raised by the petitioner. The learned Government
Pleader on behalf of the State would submit that the complaint
was received only by registered post.
WPC 13857/09 3
3. The fact remains that the petitioner with a view to
construct the building has purchased a land obtained necessary
permits. It is not shown that any other permit is required to be
obtained by the petitioner. According to the 4th respondent, the
alleged construction is within a distance of 100 metres and that
it violates the environmental laws. No specific provision is
referred to nor brought to our notice. At any rate, if the alleged
construction is in violation of any provisions of law, it is certainly
open to the 4th respondent to approach the appropriate authority
who granted permission, pointing out the same. So long as no
such complaint is made and so far as the petitioner is carrying
out the construction activities after obtaining the necessary
permits, no obstruction should be caused to the construction
activities. If the 4th respondent has got any sentimental or other
objections, this court cannot prevent them from raising such
protest in a peaceful manner. So long as any agitation is done in
a peaceful manner allowed by law, the police will not interfere.
However, if they transgress their limits to one of taking law into
their own hands, causing physical obstruction, certainly the
WPC 13857/09 4
petitioner is entitled for necessary protection in this regard and
the police shall afford such protection.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
WPC 13857/09 5