IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22572 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SECRETARY,THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OP. HOSPITAL LTD.NO.D-2002,ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006. BY ADV. SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRAJOSH.K.T,S/O.SARADA , AGED 30 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE, ERANHIPALAM PO, CALICUT 673 006. 2. ABDUL MUTHALEEF.K.T,S/O.ABDULLAKOYA, AGED 42 YEARS,KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE, ERANHIPALAM PO,CALICUT 673 006. 3. ASMABAI.K.T,W/O.SANTHOSH,AGED 40 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE,ERANHIPALAM PO,CALICUT-673006 4. SUBAIDA.K.T, W/O.ABDUL MUTHALEEF,AGED 35 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE,ERANHIPALAM PO,CALICUT-673006 5. SMITHA.K.T,W/O.RAJESH,AGED 28 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE,ERANHIPALAM PO,CALICUT-673006 6. RAJESH.K.T,S/O.MADHAVI,AGED 33 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE,ERANHIPALAM PO,CALICUT-673006 7. SARADA.K.T,W/O/KUTTAN,AGED 65 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM,CALICUT-673006 8. GEETHA.K,W/O.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 45 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE,'FEBIN NIVAS',ERANHIPALAM PO, CALICUT-673006. WPC.22572/2010 2 9. RAJINA.K.T,AGED 35 YEARS, KOYYERITHAZHAM HOUSE,ERANHIPALAM PO,CALICUT-673006 10. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 11. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,KOZHIKODE. 12. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETRY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI T.K.VIPIN DAS FOR R10 TO R12. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.22572/10 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 7.6.05 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.09 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF PERMISSION NO.EG3.38214/10, DATED 20.5.10 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE.. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISCUSSIONS ON 9.6.10 BEFORE THE RDO, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 22.5.10 TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.5.10 TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 25.5.10 TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 26.6.10 SUBMITTED TO THE 11TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.22572 of 2010-V ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enable the petitioner to construct a building for running a Nursing School and Hostel. The petitioner is a District Co- operative Hospital. They run a Nursing School. Under the relevant rules, they have to run the Nursing School and hostel in a building belonging to them. For this purpose, acquisition was resorted to and the petitioner has already obtained 20.60 cents of land. Deemed permit for construction has been secured under Ext.P2. When the petitioner made arrangements to start construction, there were objections from respondents 1 to 9. They raised objection that the proposed construction would result in nuisance to them by water stagnation etc. The petitioner stopped the construction. Conciliation was attempted. Thereafter Ext.P3 directions were issued providing safeguards. Drainage was constructed at the expense of the petitioner and the same was connected to the main sewage. In spite of the fact that all these were done by the W.P(C) No.22572 of 2010-V 2 petitioner, the obstruction continued. The Revenue Divisional Officer called a meeting and Ext.P4 agreement was reached. In spite of such agreement, respondents 1 to 9 did not permit the petitioner to undertake the construction. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Respondents 1 to 9 have entered appearance. They raise objections to the proposed construction. To put it in a nut shell, their objection is that construction if undertaken as proposed, that would result in nuisance and suffering to the petitioners. In these circumstances, respondents 1 to 9 are entitled to raise objections, it is contended. The petitioner has secured direction for construction. Respondents 1 to 9 raise objection against construction on the ground that the proposed construction if undertaken, would result in nuisance against them. We are of the opinion that it is not possible for us invoking and exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve this controversy between the parties. Parties must approach the civil court and seek appropriate directions. We are certainly of the opinion that with the available inputs, the W.P(C) No.22572 of 2010-V 3 dispute between the parties cannot be authentically resolved. At any rate, it is for the parties to approach the appropriate court/fora to settle their disputes and their disputes cannot be settled in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/