IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3538 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. V.A.ANTONY, QUEENS FANCY & FOOT WEAR, KARUVANCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 571. 2. V.D.DEVASIA, VADAKKEMURIYIL, FORMFIT GARMENTS, KARUVANCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 571. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS DIVISION, KANNUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS SECTION, TALIPARAMBA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAKKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, NADUVIL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, (P.O.)NADUVIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, NADUVIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. MUHAMMED KUNHI, THENAN HOUSE, KUTTAPARAMBU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN. R4 SRI.C.A.JOSEPH R6 SRI.V.A.SATHEESH & SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KL. WP(C).No. 3538 of 2010(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/09/2009 BY THE PETITIONRS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 15/10/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE KL. 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