IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 266 of 2011(G) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S.TRAVANCORE BUILDERS PVT.LTD., TRAVANCORE HOUSE, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, N.H.BYE-PASS, COCHIN-682 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.ANAS.A.M. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN (CUSBA) POLICE STATION, COCHIN-682 018. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, COCHIN-682 024. 3. DR.D.RAJESH, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, AMRITHA HOSPITAL, EDAPALLY, COCHIN-682 025. 4. JAYASREE, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR KAMATH, CC XXXV/2700, SIVALAYAM ROAD, THAMMANAM P.O., COCHIN-682 032. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 266 of 2011(G) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO. 18773 OF 2010 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ANOTHER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN WRIT PETITION NO.18773 OF 2010. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY CORPORATION OF COCHIN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 18773 OF 2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.266 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition complaining about harassment by police officials, respondents 1 and 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have purchased the property in question from the mother of the 4th respondent and have undertaken the work of constructing villas in such property. Requisite permits have been obtained and the construction work is going on. In the meantime, the 4th respondent and her husband raised objections against the construction of one villa. They alleged that the constructed building offends the building rules relating to set off from their boundary. Proceedings have been initiated by the Corporation of Cochin and in respect of that W.P(C) No.18773 of 2010 has been filed by the 4th respondent and her husband before this Court. That Writ Petition has been disposed of by us vide a separate order today. W.P(C) No.266 of 2011 2 2. The present controversy is about the alleged harassment by respondents 1 and 2 at the instance of the 4th respondent and her brother 3rd respondent, who are stated to be influential persons. At the instance of respondents 3 and 4, who are on inimical terms with the petitioner in the light of the controversy raised in W.P(C) No.18773 of 2010, respondents 1 and 2 had directed the petitioner to discontinue the work of construction of villas. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 or respondents 3 and 4 have no legal right to object to or obstruct to the work of construction. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to desist from harassing the petitioner with unjustified objections and directions. 3. All respondents have entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that respondents 3 and 4 have no objection whatsoever against the petitioner continuing the construction. That statement is, of course, subject to their objections raised in W.P(C) No.18773 of 2010. But, they have no intention to obstruct the construction of work now. They do, of course, want the Corporation of Cochin to W.P(C) No.266 of 2011 3 take necessary action as claimed by them in W.P(C) No.18773 of 2010. Respondents 3 and 4 have now only one objection. According to them, the work in the adjacent property is being carried on by the petitioner into the night, thereby causing difficulties in the peaceful residence of respondents 3 and 4 in their adjacent property. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that respondents 1 and 2 had, on the basis of the complaint received from respondents 3 and 4 of unjustified nuisance caused to them by the unauthorised continuance of work into the night, directed the petitioner to desist from such acts of nuisance. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall undertake that no work shall go on after 6 p.m and before 6 a.m. Respondents 1 and 2 as well as respondents 3 and 4 submit that in that event the petitioner can carry on the work without any obstruction or objection. We are now satisfied that no further directions are necessary in the matter. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, making it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to undertake the work W.P(C) No.266 of 2011 4 between 6 a.m and 6 p.m. We make it further clear that the right of respondents 3 and 4 to claim the relief in W.P(C) No.18773 of 2010 shall in no way be affected by this judgment. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/