IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8105 of 2010(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAKESH G.D., S/O.DHARMASENAN, AGED 39 YEARS, GOVINDA BHAVAN, MEENATHU CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. GRACE @ SAJI, W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, PRAVACHAKA BHAVAN, VALIYANGADI KIZHAKKATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MEENATHU CHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, PRAVACHAKA BHAVAN, VALIYANGADI KIZHAKKATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MEENATHU CHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. LARIN @ BABY, W/O.JEROM, AGED 45 YEARS, VALIYANGADI KIZHAKKATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, NO.13, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MEENATHU CHERRY KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SARASSAMMA, W/O.NADARAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, VALIYANGADI KIZHAKKATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MEENATHU CHERRY KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. REJI, W/O.XAVIER, AGED 47 YEARS, VALIYANGADI KIZHAKKATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU NO.12,SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MEENATHU CHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. JUSTUFF, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, VALIYANGADI KIZHAKKATHIL LEKSHAM VEEDU NO.15, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MEENATHU CHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8105/2010 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF SURVEY NO.94/42 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE OFFICE. P2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM. P3: COPY OF THE POWER ALLOCATION SANCTIONED BY THE KSEB. P4: COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND CONCRETE ROAD. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26/02/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 & P8: NIL P9: COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND CORPORATION ROAD ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF KOLLAM CORPORATION, P10: ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A): COPY OF THE REAL PLAN REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE ANGANVADY. R6(B): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ANGANVADY AND ITS PROPERTY. R6(C): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ANGANVADY AND ITS PROPERTY. R6(D): PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ANGANVADY AND ITS PROPERTY. R6(E): COPY OF THE I.A. AND THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY IN O.S.NO.89/97 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.8105 of 2010-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner wanted to establish a power laundry unit. It appears that he was granted permission by the LSGI. The Village Officer has also shown a sketch regarding the lie of the property. It appears that there is a Leksham Veedu Colony in the vicinity and an Anganwadi has been provided to cater to the needs of the younger ones in that locality. There seems to be objections by the residents of the Colony for movement of goods etc. by the petitioner through an item of property which the petitioner says is part of a public pathway(a corporation road). The stand of the private respondents is that the said parcel is part of the land earmarked for the Anganwadi and if the petitioner utilises any portion of that property for his ingress and egress, that will adversely affect the interest WPC8105/10 -: 2 :- of the children. 2.Sitting in writ jurisdiction, that too, on a request for a police protection order, with only police officers as the official respondents, it would be wholly inadvisable for this Court to enter on an adjudication as to the identity of the corporation road or a public road, as also the limits of the land over which the Anganwadi stands. As of now, it is stated that following the interim orders, the petitioner has completed the construction and has now to get appropriate sanction from the Engineers of the Departments to commence his operations. Taking note of the scope of the controversy between the parties, it is ordered that the petitioner and all or any among respondents 3 to 8 will appear before the RDO, Kollam on the 30th September, 2010. He will hear the parties and take a decision on the controversy to enable a peaceful resolution of the conflict without, in WPC8105/10 -: 3 :- any manner, impairing the facilities of the Anganwadi children and the rights of the petitioner in relation to the establishment. In spite of the fact that the elections to the local bodies have been ordered, the RDO will resolve the issue within an outer limit of three weeks from Ist of October after hearing the parties. It is also clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the RDO utilising any of his powers as a Sub Divisional Magistrate in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if need be. Thereafter, the parties will be governed by the decision that the said officer would issue. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Q.Barkath Ali, Judge. Sha/2309