IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18548 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VAMBANTE SHERIFF, VAMBANTE HOUSE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676 505. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, PIN 679586. 3. PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNANI, PIN 679 586. 4. K.V.JAMALUDHEEN, S/O.K.V.KUNJU MOIDEEN, EZHAVATHURUTHY, PONNANI, PIN 679 586. 5. K.BALA KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PIDAVALLUR, PONNANI, PIN 679 586. G.P. SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 &2. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R4 & 5 SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18548 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.17/5/2010. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING DT.17.5.10 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.2.6.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO. 244/09 DT.2.12.09 EXT.R4(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT O.P. FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER DT. 22.3.2010. // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 18548 of 2010 P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs. “a) issue a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and his workers, so as to enable them to demolish the building as permitted by Ext.P3. (b) to declare that respondents 4 and 5 cannot obstruct the demolition work of the building of the petitioner since it is duly permitted by the third respondent considering the dilapidated situation of the building. W.P.(C).No. 18548 of 2010 2 (c) writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner purchased an extent of 2.810 cents with a building. Respondents 4 and 5 are the tenants in that building, which is in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner applied for permission to demolish the building. The Secretary of the third respondent Municipality called for a report through the competent authority, which submitted Ext.P2 report recommending that the building is in a dilapidated condition and there is threat to human life. Therefore, the Secretary issued permission to demolish the building. The petitioner is being obstructed by respondents 4 and 5. He filed a complaint before the second respondent. W.P.(C).No. 18548 of 2010 3 3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 4 and 5, inter alia, stating as follows. It is stated that the building is not in a dilapidated condition. It is also stated that these respondents have every right to obstruct. The petitioner intends to demolish the building, where they are conducting business. They have also filed Ext.R4(a) plaint and an order of injunction was granted in their favour. It is while the injunction order is in force that the previous owner assigned the building to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed Ext.R4(b) caveat. The respondents filed an application to implead the writ petitioner as a defendant and that is pending. It is also contended that the attempt is to circumvent the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 4. We heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. We notice that civil suit is pending, where an application for impleading the petitioner is also pending. No doubt, the W.P.(C).No. 18548 of 2010 4 petitioner has obtained permission to demolish the building. It is common case that respondents 4 and 5 are tenants in the said building. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the building collapsed the petitioner cannot be blamed. 7. In the nature and circumstances of the case, we do not think it appropriate for us to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner. Without prejudice to the rights of the parties to raise their contentions before appropriate forum, this Writ Petition is disposed of. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm