IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17779 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. SREENIVASAN, SARIN'S THAZHAM, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 3. SURESH KUMAR S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, AMPOLIL VEEDU, UPPODU, EAST KALLADA. 4. MADHUSUDHANANA PILLAI, S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, AMPOLIL VEEDU, UPPODU, EAST KALLADA. 5. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AMPOLIL VEEDU, UPPODU, EAST KALLADA. 6. ERSHI, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU (KADANKUZHIYIL VEEDU) PADAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.17779/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 5/1/08 IN O.S.NO.782/05 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. P2 COPY OF THE BUILDING LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM EAST KALLADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P2(A) COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN OF THE BUILDING. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.17779 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to him for construction of a residential building in a property which belongs to him. Respondents 3 to 6 are raising unnecessary, illegal and untenable objections and obstruction to the construction, it is alleged. According to the petitioner, the property belongs to him absolutely. There can possibly be no dispute about his right. When respondents 1 to 3 raised objections, the petitioner had gone to the civil court and had obtained Ext.P1 judgment. It has now become final. The attempt to challenge Ext.P1 has not succeeded. In spite of Ext.P1 decision and upholding of the said decision later in appeal, respondents 3 to 6 are continuing with the unjustified obstruction. It is, in these circumstances, that the prayer is made to direct respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection. 2. Respondents 3 to 6 have been served. There is no appearance for respondents 3 to 6. W.P(C) No.17779 of 2010 2 3. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that there appears to be some dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6. An interim order was passed by another Bench on 23.09.2010 and the 2nd respondent was directed “to give protection to the petitioner as against the interference from respondents 3 to 6 for carrying out the construction by the petitioner as per Ext.P2 (permit) for a period of two weeks”. The same has been extended from time to time. The learned Government Pleader submits that the said interim direction may now be made absolute and further proceedings may be discontinued. 4. In the total absence of objections from respondents 3 to 6 and in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 and the undisputed fact that Ext.P1 was upheld in appeal, we are satisfied that the request of the petitioner can be accepted. 5. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The interim directions issued on 23.09.2010 is made absolute. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/