IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16283 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHARAD NAIR.M., S/O.SHASHIKUMAR, DIRETOR, DGR RESORTS AND SPA PVT LTD., RESIDING AT VANSHIKA APARTMENT, PANAMPILLY LINK ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.R.REKESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. CITU, POOJAVELI UNIT, KAIPURAM, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. 4. B.M.S., POOJAVELI UNIT, KAIPURAM, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. 5. INTUC, POOJAVELI UNIT, KAIPURAM, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R3& 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 16283 OF 2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 7.4.2008 EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.4.2008. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 8.7.2008 IN RESPECT OF THE TOURIST RESORT. EXT.P3(A).TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE COMPOUND WALL DATED 6.6.2008. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 23.1.2010 EXT.P4A.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY the 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.1.2010. EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.4.2010. EXT.P5A.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16283 of 2010-I ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and his workers to carry out the construction in the property covered by Ext.p1 sale deed (comprised in Block No.34 Re Sy Nos 156/2-2, 157/6-2, 157/6-1, 157/7-2, 157/7-1, 157/11, 157/4-2 and 157/4-1 in Thannermukkam South Village, Cherthala taluk) from the illegal obstructions of the respondents 3 to 5 and their members or men. 2. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondent No.2 to take appropriate action upon Ext.P4 and P5 complaints.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner purchased property having an extent of 148.131 cents vide Ext.P1 sale deed. Mutation was effected. Ext.P2 is the tax receipt. Petitioner wanted to construct a tourist resort. Petitioner applied for building permit. Ext.P3 is the building permit. Ext.P3(a) is the permit for the WPC No.16283/2010 -2- compound wall. Petitioner started construction of compound wall. It is stated that members of respondents 3 to 5 are obstructing the construction. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 complaint for which Ext.P4(a) receipt was given. Again petitioner filed Ext.P5 complaint for which Ext.P5(a) receipt is given. This writ petition is filed seeking police protection. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter affidavit. It is inter alia stated as follows: They are not causing any obstruction. They were employed by the petitioner earlier. It is also stated that this fact is not stated in the writ petition and it is admitted in the reply affidavit. Reply affidavit is also filed. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the pleadings in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the party respondents submits that the party respondents are not obstructing. It is submitted that as far as the construction works are concerned the respondent unions have no right to insist for employment. It is pointed out that in the matter of loading and unloading they may be employed and they are being employed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is willing to WPC No.16283/2010 -3- employ members of party respondents for loading and unloading work. In the light of the submissions made across the Bar and the pleadings in the case we dispose of the writ petition by directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner if the petitioner is obstructed by the members of respondents 3 to 5 in carrying out the work of construction in the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed pursuant to Ext.P3 and P3(a). We make it clear that protection will not extend to doing of loading and unloading work to which we have already recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is willing to employ the members of the party respondents. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS