IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27832 of 2010(D)
1. S.N.RAGHUCHANDRAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. DR.CHELLA DURAI RAJ,
5. SRI.DIVAKARAN NAIR,
6. SRI.V.VELAYUDHAN THAMPI,
7. SRI.P.K.PADMANABHAN PILLAI,
8. SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SMT.SUMATHI.DANDAPANI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :09/11/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of November 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.JOSEPH,J
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
the 3rd respondent to grant adequate and
effective police protection to the petitioner, his
staff and workers to carry out the construction
work undertaken as per Ext.P1 power of
attorney from the threat and obstruction of
respondents 4 to 8 and their henchmen in the
interest of justice.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner is the Managing Director of
M/s.S.I.Property (Kerala) Pvt.Ltd. The Company is putting up a
multi storied residential building. The land owner executed
Ext.P1 power of attorney in favour of the Company. Ext.P2
building permit is obtained from the Corporation of
Thiruvananthapuram for the construction of a multi storied
building. Later, a stop memo dated 01/07/2008 was issued by
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 2
the Corporation to the land owner alleging certain irregularities.
The land owner approached this Court by filing a writ petition to
complete the proceedings initiated on the basis of the stop
memo. This Court, by Ext.P3 judgment, directed the Corporation
to finalise the proceedings. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P4
order was issued cancelling the stop memo. The 5th respondent
filed a complaint before the District Collector stating that the
proposed construction was causing difficulties. Subsequent to
the same, Ext.P5 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer, as
instructed by the District Collector. The land owner was heard
by the District Collector and after perusing the documents
submitted by the land owner, the District Collector was
convinced that the complaint raised by the 5th respondent was
baseless. Accordingly the complaint filed by the 5th respondent
was dismissed. It is stated that respondents 4 and 5 are the
office bearers of the Residents Association and respondents 6 to
8 are neighbouring property owners. The Company started
preliminary work in the first week of August 2010. Respondents
4 to 8 threatened the workers of the Company. They are not
able to carry out the work.
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 3
4. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 5 to 8
wherein they have produced Ext.R8(1) to R8(4). It is inter alia
stated as follows: The owner of the building claimed that he was
putting up the building in an extent of 14.5 cents. According to
the Association, the total extent would be only 13.5 cents.
Exts.P5 and P6 have no bearing relating to the case in question.
When the plan was submitted on behalf of the owner Leela Devi,
the Registered Engineer has given an undertaking that the
development will be carried out as per the approved plan and
permit. There is reference to attempts made to demolish the
existing building and cracks being found in the building of the
residence of the deponent and also one Raveendran Nair. The
petitioner intends to construct a ten storied building. It is stated
that there is no provision for proper drainage. About 25 people
are having drainage system flowing from eastern side. If the
building is erected over this drainage there will not be any
means for clearing the debris passing through it. It is also stated
that there is a road on the northern side by the name ‘Althara
Road’ and on the northern side of the road there is a school, a
Devi temple and a hall. Due to the density of the residents
already occupying the area, the 5 feet road which is now situated
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 4
on the northern side, cannot accomplish passengers’ need. If the
building is put up, flow of air and light would be completely
blocked. They filed Ext.R8(2) representation followed by further
representation Ext.R8(3) acknowledged by Ext.R8(4). It is
specifically stated that the respondents had never obstructed any
work that has been carried out.
5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. It is inter
alia stated that the petitioner has demolished all the building
manually. It is stated there is no fresh memo after 31/7/2008.
The building permit was granted as per the Building Rules after
showing sufficient parking facility. The petitioner shall
undertake the construction taking all possible care and in the
event of any drainage line in the work site, it will be relocated
without any damage.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned senior counsel for the party respondents and the
learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. We entertained
a doubt on the basis of the submission of the learned senior
counsel for the party respondents that a stop memo is still in
existence. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation
would point out that as of now there is no stop memo against the
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 5
petitioner. The petitioner is armed with the permit issued. The
party respondents would also state in the counter affidavit that
they had never physically obstructed the construction.
7. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the
petitioner deserves relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to grant effective police
protection to the petitioner, his staff and workers to carry out
the work undertaken on the strength of Ext.P1 power of attorney
as against any threat or obstruction from respondents 4 to 8 as
long as the petitioner does the construction in accordance with
the permit and any other permission which is obtained. We
make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of
respondents 4 to 8 peacefully agitating or from approaching any
competent court/forum, if they feel aggrieved by the activities of
the petitioner or the permit granted in favour of the petitioner.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 6
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 7
W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 8
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
30/082010