IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26899 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- HONEY S., NIDHI, SP VII/228-I, S.N.COLLEGE JUNCTION, CHEMPAZHANTHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE, SMT.MINI GOPINATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 582. 2. RAVEENDRAN, RAVEENDRA BHAVAN, CHEMPAZHANTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587. 3. M.R.BHASI, LEELA BHAVAN, CHEMPAZHANTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.26899/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TALUK SURVEYOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WITH PLAN. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD.5.6.2006. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.3.07 IN WPC NO.9010 OF 2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.238/10 OF KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD.23.1.2010. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLAINT BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.2.10.2011, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26899 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, a widow, has approached this court seeking directions for police protection against the 1st respondent Sub Inspector of Police so that adequate and effective protection be given to the petitioner and her workers for completing the work of re-construction of compound wall in accordance with Ext.P5 protection, if such work is obstructed by respondents 2 and 3 or anybody acting under them. According to the petitioner, the compound wall was constructed by her on the strength of Ext.P3 order under the supervision of the Taluk Surveyor. But immediately after the compound wall was constructed respondent Nos.2 and 3 and a group of their followers destroyed the wall. The reason for destroying the wall is that the existence of the wall is detrimental to a Badam tree which is providing shade to the students and others who come to Bus waiting shed situated near to the above wall. The petitioner submits that by the time the wall was demolished the validity of the permit on the strength of which it was constructed expired. Therefore the W.P.(C).26899/11 -2- petitioner applied for and obtained from the Panchayat a new permit Ext.P5. The petitioner is prepared to re-construct the wall on the strength of Ext.P5. But the party respondents and their people are opposed to this. 2. Eventhough the party respondents have been served with notice, they have not come forward to resist the allegations or the prayers in the writ petition. Learned Government Pleader Sri.Dinesh Mathew Manjooran, on the basis of instructions received from the 1st respondent, submitted that the facts pertaining to the construction of the wall is more or less as stated by the petitioner. But the police are not in a position to grant police protection to the re-construction of the wall as the local authority, the Grama Panchayat, is yet to approach the police for protection. The Badam tree actually stands in the middle of the wall. Ext.P5 building permit is subject to four conditions quoted below: (1) Validity from 23.1.2010 to 22.1.2012 (2) oq¾]R£ fa]nLYU kOr¾Oj]¡¾]pLp]q]¨eU of]¤ j]¡ÚLeU jaS¾ºf. (3) oq¾]R£pOU oqU j]¤¨OÐ òs¾]R£pOU DaoòLvWLwU fOa¡ÐOU è}of]. ze]pORa Skq]¤ fRÐ j]ƒ]kfoLp]q] ¨OÐfLe. (4) v]h|L¡À]WtORa j]SvhjU kq]Ye]\ NkñOf fe¤oqU oOr] \OoLãOvL¢ kLa]sL¾fLWOÐO. The photograph which was shown to us by the Government W.P.(C).26899/11 -3- Pleader shows that the proposal of the petitioner is to re- construct the wall in accordance with the terms and conditions of Ext.P5. We record the assurance of the petitioner given to us through her lawyer Sri.Kishore that the re-construction will be strictly in accordance with all the conditions in Ext.P5. We direct the petitioner to inform the 1st respondent as well as the Taluk Surveyor concerned of the date and time she proposes to start and complete the re-construction of the wall. We direct the 1st respondent to be present when re-construction is carried out. The 1st respondent shall render all protection to the petitioner for carrying out the re-construction provided the re-construction is being done by the petitioner strictly in accordance with Ext.P5. Respondents 2 and 3 or anybody under them should not be allowed to interfere with the re-construction if re-construction is in accordance with Ext.P5. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb