IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2784 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ WILSON GEORGE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROYAL PLAZA HOTEL, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.GEORGE RAJU SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 4. RAJU PODIYAN, PALUTHARAYIL VEEDU, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SHAJI VARGHESE, MANGALASSERI THARAYIL, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. AMBI THANKAPPAN, AVALATTU KIZHAKKATHIL, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.2784 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY DATED 7.7.2007 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.47147 DATED 6.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.1.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXT.P3 / TRUE COPY / K.M.Joseph & M.L. Joseph Francis, JJ. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.2784 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks police protection. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is constructing a three star hotel after obtaining necessary building permit from the competent authority as evidenced by Exs.P1 and P2. The complaint is that respondents 4 to 6 are obstructing the construction work demanding 'nokkucooli' without doing any work. Petitioner has filed Ext.P3 complaint before the third respondent. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 6 are politically influential. 2. Though notice was served, there is no appearance for respondents 4 to 6. We have already passed an interim order granting protection for carrying out the loading and unloading work using mechanical device. WP(C) No.2784 of 2010 2 - 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, we feel that the interim order can be made absolute. The writ petition is disposed of making the interim order absolute. K.M.Joseph, Judge M.L. Joseph Francis, Judge vns