IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37546 of 2008(T)
1. ANGEL RAJ, S/O. YESUDAS, AGED 39
... Petitioner
2. JEEN RAJ, S/O. YESUDAS, AGED 41 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDNET OF POLICE (RURAL),
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. RAJAN, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR,
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARAMPILLY, ALUVA.
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :18/12/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.37546 OF 2008 T
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are brothers. They have purchased two
small plots of land in Marampilly Village in Aluva Taluk. They are
proposing to construct residential buildings there. They want to
shift to their own buildings, from the rented buildings occupied by
them. The properties purchased by them are wet lands which
have to be filled, for constructing the residential buildings. The
petitioners think, such filling is permissible for small house plots.
The local people led by the 3rd respondent, who is a blind man,
are causing obstruction to the filling of the land. Apparently,
they are opposing it on environmental grounds. The petitioner
filed Exhibit P11 representation before the police pointing out the
obstruction caused and seeking protection. Since, the police
failed to extend any helping hand to them, this Writ Petition is
filed, seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd
W.P.(C)No. 37546/08 -2-
respondents to provide adequate police protection to the
petitioners against 3rd respondent and his men to construct
petitioners’ residential buildings as per the building permits
issued by Vazhakkulam Grama Panchayat.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd
respondents to consider Exhibit P11 representation
forthwith.
Going by Exhibit P11, we notice that the same does not disclose
any cognizable offence. The allegation is regarding simple
obstruction. If that be so, the remedy of the petitioners lie
before the competent civil court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners
and their right to move the competent civil court for appropriate
reliefs.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn