IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8125 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.SURESH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SWATHI STORES, ROOM NO. XVII/301 P.O.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. M.C.SREEKANTH, S/O.P.N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, PEECEEYES ENTERPRISES, XVII/296 P.O.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 3. SASIDHARAN, ARUNA CHEMICALS, XVII/302, P.O.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 4. M.S.VENUGOPALAN, SWASTHIK WATCH WORKS, XVII/299 P.O.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTYAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR @ CHITHRA, KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, CHITRA COLOUR LAB AND STUDIO, POST OFFICE ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 5. KESAVA IYYER, S/O.SUBRAMANYA AYYAR, CHITRA STUDIO, P.O.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 6. GIRISH, S/O.KUMAR, INDIAN COLLEGE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. ADDL. 7. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADDL. 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 3913 OF 2010 DATED 17.3.2010. BY G.P. SRI. T. K. VIPINDAS FOR R1 TO R3. SRI. J. KRISHNAKUMAR - FOR R4 TO R6 SRI. SIBY MATHEW - FOR ADDL. R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 36944 OF 2008. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXTENSION OF STATUS QUO DATED 15.1.2009 IN W.P. © NO. 36944 OF 2008. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.2.2010. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS 2 AND 4 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(1) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 507 OF 2008 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 24.11.2009. EXT.R4(2) SERIES : TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT BUSINESS LIKE SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS ETC. EXTR4(3) SERIES : TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE BUILDING. EXTR4(4) : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE FESTIVAL OF THE THIRUNAKKARA TEMPLE, KOTTAYAM. K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 8125 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner has approached this court directing respondents 1 to 3 to give sufficient and adequate protection to the petitioners to carry on their business and against the illegal attempt of respondents 4 to 6 and their allies and gang men from illegally demolishing the rented building bearing Nos. XVII/296, XVII/299, XVII/301 and XVII/302 of Kottayam Muicipality. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows. The petitioners are tenants of the building bearing nos. XVII/296, XVII/299, XVII/301 and XVII/302 of Kottayam Muicipality and the respondents 4 and 5 are landlords of the same building. It is stated W.P.(C) No. 8125 of 2010 2 that there are a series of litigations by the petitioners along with other petitioners for the protection of their rights. There was a proposal for widening the road and portion of the building, wherein the petitioners were doing business were also demolished. This court ordered status quo, which was extended until further orders. It is stated that while the status quo was in force, the Secretary, Kottayam Municipality issued a notice under Section 411 of the Municipalities Act requiring the landlord to demolish the building on the ground that the building is old and in a dangerous condition. The said notice was issued at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 with ulterior motive to evict the petitioners from the building. Respondents 4 and 5 are highly influential, politically and financially. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by the party respondents. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality would submit that the order of notice under Section 411 itself was W.P.(C) No. 8125 of 2010 3 not pressed on account of the order of the status quo in the other Writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord would submit that they do not intend to demolish the building and they may not be responsible for any consequence which may arise on account of old age of the building. The learned counsel for the Municipality also submits that they also may not be held responsibilities. 5. In the light of the aforesaid facts and submissions made by the learned counsel, which we record, the Writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to give protection to the petitioners against any attempt of respondents 4 to 6 and their men from illegally demolishing the building bearing nos. XVII/296, XVII/299, XVII/301 and XVII/302 of Kottayam Muicipality. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/