IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 240 of 2010(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28758/2009 Dated 05/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6: ----------------------------------------- 1. CHACKO, S/O.JOSEPH, MATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. JOSEPH, S/O.CHACKO, MOOLAEKALAM HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MOOLAEKALAM HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 7: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. MOLLYKUTTY JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH, KADAMTHODE HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. GIGIMOLE SIBYCHEN, W/O.SIBYCHEN, KADAMTHODE HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE S.I.OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION. 4. THE C.I.OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, ALONG WITH WA.1469/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP.240/2010 in WPC.28758/2009 & W.A. No. 1469 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 Judgment Basheer, J: These two cases are being disposed of through this common judgment since the issue involved in them is closely inter-related. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 in the Review Petition had approached this Court praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to the Police officials at Changanacherry to give adequate and effective police protection in order to enable them to remove “necessary soil from their respective properties in the light of Ext.P1 order issued by the Tahsildar, Changanacherry.” 3. According to respondents 1 and 2, soil had to be removed for the purpose of construction of residential buildings for them. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on November 5, 2009 with a direction to the Police officials to give adequate and effective protection as prayed for. RP.240/2010 & WA.1469/2010. : 2 : 4. Petitioners in the review petition are respondents 4 to 6 in the above writ petition. Their grievance appears to be that respondents 1 and 2 had already removed soil from a height of 20 feet on the strength of Ext.P1 in December 2008 itself, ignoring the strong protest raised by the local people. It is further contended by the review petitioners that the Tahsildar had no authority or jurisdiction to issue a permit like Ext.P1. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the above and other contentions raised by the review petitioners at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass. 5. Sri.Kuruvilla Jacob, learned counsel who appears for respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners submits that the allegations are totally baseless and incorrect. It is true that some local residents had some reservations about the removal of the soil. They had succeeded in preventing the writ petitioners from removing the soil even though this Court had ordered police protection. Though some soil was excavated from the site, writ petitioners could not transport the same because of the stiff resistance of the local people. It is submitted by the learned counsel that writ RP.240/2010 & WA.1469/2010. : 3 : petitioners do not intend to create a law and order situation in the area nor will they take law into their own hands and indulge in any illegal act. He further submits that further excavation and transportation will be carried out only after obtaining necessary permit/sanction from the authority concerned. The above submission is recorded. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to entertain this revision petition. 6. It is made clear that it would be open to the writ petitioners to approach the authority concerned and obtain necessary permission either for excavation, or transportation of the soil which is stated to have been extracted already. Necessarily the authority concerned shall look into the matter in its proper perspective and consider the objections, if any, from the local people while issuing the permit. 7.Review Petition is closed with the above direction. WA.No.1469/2010: 8. Appellant is one of the Review Petitioners in the Review Petition referred to above. He impugns the RP.240/2010 & WA.1469/2010. : 4 : judgment passed by the learned single Judge dismissing his writ petition in which he had called in question the validity of Ext.P1 permit issued by the Tahsildar, Chaganacherry granting permission to the petitioners in WPC.No.28758/2009 to remove the soil. 9. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches noticing that the permit was issued way back in the year 2008 and that the writ petition has been filed by the appellant only in 2010. In view of the order passed by us in the review petition, we do not find any reason to entertain the writ appeal. Moreover, there is no valid or justifiable reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned single Judge. Therefore the writ appeal is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. C.T. Ravikumar Judge. an.