IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30049 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUMAN LAL, SON OF GANGADHARAN, AGED 38, AGRICULTURIST, CHUDUKATTIL CHIRA VEEDU, KONATHU CHIRA KUNTHIRICKAL P.O, THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.R.AZAD BABU SMT.H.ANJALIDEVI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAVADY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DIST.688 003 3. M.P.RAJAN, NAMBALATHSSERIL,THALAVADY P.O ALAPPUZHA DIST 688 003 4. N.C. CHACKO, PARUMOOTTIL, KUNTHIRICKAL P.O, THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA DIST.688 003 5. SOMI P ANIL, PARUMOOTTIL, KUNTHIRICKAL P.O, THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA DIST 688 003 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER FOR R1 AND R2 ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR FOR R3 TO 5 SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN FOR R3 TO 5 SMT.T.J.SEEMA FOR R3 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30049 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.6/AEE/CB/2011-2012 DATED 10/10/2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 10/10/2011 EXECUTED BY THE BENEFICIARY COMMITTEE EXT.P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 6-11-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHAMPAKKULAM. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE JANAKEEYA PRATHIKARANA VEDI CONVENING A MEETING ON 21.10.2011. EXT.R3(c) : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITH THE RECEIPT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION. EXT.R3(d) : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF WARD NO.13 OF THALAVADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TOJUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.30049 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J The petitioner is the Convener of a Beneficiary Committee formed for the execution of the work of constructing a culvert in Konathuchira Chathuruthy Paddy field in Ward No.13 of Champakulam Block Panchayath. According to him, the work is being carried out as part of the peoples planning programme and is funded by the Champakulam Block Panchayath. Exts.P1 and P2 agreements have been executed by him in his capacity as Convener on the one part and the Assistant Executive Engineer of the LSGD representing the Government. The petitioner alleges that the local people under the leadership of respondents 3 to 5 are obstructing the execution of the work on extraneous reasons. Hence this writ petition seeking directions for police protection. W.P.(c)No.30049 of 2011 2 2. The party/respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is contended therein that the work in question was given to the committee of which the petitioner is the Convener only because the petitioner happened to be the son-in-law of the President of the Block Panchayath. The only beneficiary of the work being executed will be the petitioner. This is a clear case of corruption and misuse of political power. Large number of local people have already filed a mass complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The Ombudsman posted the case to the first week of January, 2012 till the Ombudsman takes a decision on the complaint police protection may not be granted. There are ever so many other necessary projects in the same Block Panchayath, which will be of immense benefit to the public generally, it is submitted. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.Azad Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sanal Kumar, the learned counsel for the party/respondents. We have also heard the submissions of Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Senior W.P.(c)No.30049 of 2011 3 Government Pleader. The submissions were addressed by Sri.R.Azad Babu and Sri.Sanal Kumar on the basis of the rival pleadings raised by the respective parties. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker's submission was that the police will be ready to abide by any direction which may be issued. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having gone through the pleadings and materials placed on record, we feel that the party/respondents have some reason to be aggrieved as projects which are more useful to the public generally have been superceded. Yet, long as Exts.P1 and P2 stands, it is the obligation of the petitioner to execute the works and respondents Nos.3 to 5 and anybody else in the locality are not entitled to take law into their hands. We are therefore, inclined to grant police protection sought for to be operative from 08.01.2012. The result of the above discussions, therefore is as follows: The second respondent and his police party will afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and his workers for the smooth completion of the works allotted to the W.P.(c)No.30049 of 2011 4 committee of which the petitioner is the Convener under Exts.P1 and P2, if the work is obstructed by respondents 3 to 5 or anybody acting under them. However, this protection direction will be operate with effect from 08.01.2012 only. We also clarify that if in the meanwhile the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institution issues any prohibitory orders in the matter of execution of the warrants, these directions will stand automatically withdrawn. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE ln