IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19194 of 2008(I)
1. M/S. CHICAGO BUILDERS & REAL ESTATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KOCHI CORPORATION, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. THE NEW GENERATION BANK & INSURANCE
4. MR. AZEEM S DEEN, EX-EMPLOYEE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.R.VINOD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 19194 OF 2008 I
====================
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the owner of a commercial building known as Chicago
Plaza situated in Rajaji Road, Ernakulam. In this writ petition, the
complaint is regarding a shed constructed by the 3rd respondent union,
which is exposing the cause of the 4th respondent, whose services were
terminated by his employer a lessee in the building in question. According
to the petitioner, by constructing a shed in the car parking area of the
petitioner’s building and using mike and loud speakers, an agitation is
being carried on by the 3rd respondent, and language used which is
described to be most objectionable. Petitioner submits that he has moved
the Corporation by filing Ext.P3 and also the Commissioner of Police, Kochi
by filing Ext.P4. It is stated that neither the Corporation nor the
Commissioner has taken any action for remedying the situation and
therefore this writ petition is filed.
2. The 3rd respondent and 4th respondent appears through
counsel and as usual, submits that they are holding a peaceful agitation
against the employer of the 4th respondent without using any loud speaker
WPC 19194/08
:2 :
or causing nuisance to anyone of the occupants of the building belonging
to the petitioner. They are also relying on Ext.R4(a) permit granted by the
police. The Corporation would submit that respondents 3 and 4 had not
obtained any permit from them for constructing the shed. It is stated that
coming to know of the existence of the shed, they have issued a notice
requiring respondents 3 and 4 to remove the same. It is stated that
despite this, the shed has not been removed and that further action is
being contemplated.
3. Two things are evident from the facts. That there is an
agitation going on and a shed has been constructed by the 3rd respondent.
It is also clear that the 3rd respondent has not obtained any permit from
the Corporation. The period during which the loud speakers were
permitted by Ext.R4(a) also has expired on 27/6/2008.
4. Though this Court cannot stand in the way of the respondents 3
and 4 from continuing their agitation in exposing cause of the 4th
respondent, at the same time, this Court cannot recognise the existence of
an unauthorised structure against which the Corporation has already
initiated action. Therefore, the action having been initiated by the
Corporation, the Corporation is bound to continue the same and take it to
WPC 19194/08
:3 :
its logical conclusions. This the Corporation shall do, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment.
5. Admittedly, the period of Ext.R4(a) permit has expired and
without obtaining the permit, the 3rd respondent cannot use it. In case
the 3rd respondent uses loud speakers without a permit or in violation of
the conditions subject to which permit is granted, it will be open to the
petitioner to move the Commissioner of Police, in which case, the said
Officer shall take appropriate action to remedy the grievance of the
petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp