IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36731 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.T.GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.M.TARU, RESIDING AT CHUNGATH HOUSE, EYYAL P.O., KEECHERY (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 501. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI. PREM NAVAZ J.R. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 584. 2. MR.ASRU, KAREKKAL HOUSE, EYYAL POST, KECHERI (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 501. 3. MR.RAVINDRAN BOSS, GOLD SMITH, PATHRAMANGALAM HOUSE, EYYAL POST, KECHERI (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 501. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA, R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36731/2010-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DTD. 24/05/2010 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 06/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DTD. 06/12/2010 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 24/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 18/06/10. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36731 of 2010-N ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for issue of a direction to the 1st respondent to render police protection against the alleged illegal conduct of respondents 2 and 3 and others directed against the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he owns 45 cents of land in which he proposes to construct a residential building. He has obtained the requisite permission from the local authority and Ext.R2 is the said building permit. The said building permit makes it clear that the petitioner is permitted to put up a residential building in the property during the period 18/6/10 to 17/6/13. According to the petitioner, when he commenced W.P.(C) No. 36731 of 2010 -: 2 :- work, certain persons of the locality led by respondents 2 and 3 are raising objections. The petitioner has to remove ordinary earth from the property to bring the property to the level of the road in front. When the petitioner commenced work, the persons led by respondents 2 and 3 have objected to the continuance of the work. The petitioner complained to the 1st respondent under Ext.P2 which was acknowledged under Ext.P3. He had submitted Ext.P4 complaint which is acknowledged under Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are actuated by mala fide and oblique motives and they have no reason or justification in raising any objection against the petitioner's attempt to put up a residential building after removing earth from the 45 cents plot. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that respondents 2 and 3 are not neighbours of the petitioner. They have not raised any objection against the construction of the house or the removal of sand to facilitate construction of the house. But according to respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner is attempting to obtain a blanket order of protection to the detriment of the local public/neighbours. Removal of ordinary earth from the land of the petitioner would cause ecological W.P.(C) No. 36731 of 2010 -: 3 :- problems. The removal of ordinary earth is not being done in accordance with law. In these circumstances, it is prayed that police protection may not be ordered as requested. Any such order might affect the right of the neighbours of the petitioner to challenge Ext.R2 in accordance with law, submits the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 further. 4. The learned Government Pleader concedes that Ext.P2 petition was received. But according to the learned Government Pleader, the police did not find any law and order problem or physical obstruction to the petitioner to carry out his work of construction of the house in accordance with Ext.R2 or against the removal of sand. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that some local people had raised objections against the work undertaken by the petitioner on the ground that it may cause ecological problems. No permission has been obtained for removal of earth from the plot in question, it is further submitted. 5. We have heard both counsel and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P5 issued by the Government to press his point that extraction of ordinary earth from the residential plots to facilitate constructions in private party do not in any way require W.P.(C) No. 36731 of 2010 -: 4 :- obtaining of prior permission. All the stipulations of Ext.P5 are being followed and there is no violation of any stipulation in Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contention that respondents 2 and 3 are actuated by mala fide and oblique motive and that is the only reason why they are objecting to the commencement and completion of construction in accordance with Ext.R2. 6. We make it clear that we do not want to fetter the rights of any one to challenge Ext.R2 building permit in accordance with law. But, at the moment, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the petitioner is not entitled to undertake the construction as per Ext.R2 and to remove ordinary earth in his 45 cents plot to facilitate construction of a residential building as permitted by Ext.R2. Our attention has not been drawn to any specific circumstance which can suggest that the activity undertaken by the petitioner would violate Ext.P5 order or any other provisions of the statute, rules, notifications or circulars. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this petition. 7. We do, in these circumstances, direct the 1st respondent to afford protection to the petitioner to carry out the work of construction of a residential building as permitted under Ext.R2 W.P.(C) No. 36731 of 2010 -: 5 :- by removing earth, if necessary, from the 45 cents plot to make it suitable for construction. Such work shall be undertaken strictly in compliance with all the relevant provisions of law. It is further made clear that the direction given above shall not in any way fetter the rights of any neighbour to challenge Ext.R2 or for any authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner if he violates any provisions of law. 9. This writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 36731 of 2010 -: 6 :-