IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3538 of 2010(N)
1. V.A.ANTONY,
... Petitioner
2. V.D.DEVASIA,
Vs
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SECRETARY,
5. THE JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
6. MUHAMMED KUNHI,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.C.JAMES
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 3538 of 2010 N
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are conducting business at a place
called Karuvanchal in Kannur district. What is sought for in this
writ petition is the implementation of a decision contained in
Ext.P2. Ext.P2 says that the 6th respondent had made certain
unauthorised constructions for commercial purposes, in the public
road in front of the petitioners’ shop building and that steps are
being initiated for his eviction. This is the decision which the
petitioners want to be implemented.
2. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent also
says that the construction made by the 6th respondent is
encroaching into the public road and that the structure has already
been decided to be demolished. It is also seen that the second
respondent issued a letter to the Station House Officer, Alakode
Police Station, requesting for necessary police assistance for the
implementation of the decision contained in Ext.P2. Although it is
the case of the first respondent that a portion of the unauthorised
structure has already been removed, it is obvious that the
WPC.3538/2010
: 2 :
remaining portion of the structure is still there. The 6th respondent
has no case that the building in question is not in puramboke land.
If that be so, the authorities cannot be defaulted for the decision
that has been taken by them and the decision is liable to be
implemented.
3. In that view of the matter, I direct the second
respondent to take appropriate action, if necessary, with the
assistance of the third respondent, for removal of the unauthoised
structure which is mentioned in Ext.P2. This shall be done within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge