IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23445 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.N.ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 49, S/O.NARAYANA PILLA, ARUNALAYAM HOUSE, XIX/901, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU SMT.SEEMA.E.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682 025. 3. V.T.JOHN, PROPRIETOR, S.L.VENTURES, S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682 025. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23445 OF 2010: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1181/1/09 OF MARADU SUB REGISTRY. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 24.6.2009. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONITHURA. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.23445 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 2 not to interfere in the work conducted by the petitioner in the property covered by exhibits P1 and P2 and to refrain from harassing the petitioner in order to stop the work which he is conducting in the said property. ii. to declare that the respondents 1 and 2 have no authority to obstruct or interfere in the work conducted by the petitioner in the property covered by exhibit P1 and P2 on the basis of exhibit P2 permit issued by the Cochin Corporation.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the owner of 11.515 cents of land covered by Exts.P1 and P2. The 3rd respondent is having certain properties on the western side of the property of the petitioner and he has been trying to purchase the property of the petitioner and the petitioner did not accede to his demand. Now, under the influence of the 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 police officers have illegally stopped the work. 3. The case of the 3rd respondent on the other WPC 23445/2010 -2- hand is that, permit was issued to the predecessor-in-interest and there is no permit in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner started construction and this resulted in collapse of wall of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent approached the Civil Court, and, the Court after hearing the petitioner passed injunction order. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that on the basis of a petition by the 3rd respondent the parties were called. Neither the petitioner nor the 3rd respondent appeared. He would submit that respondents 1 and 2 will not interfere in the matter unless there is any cognizable offence committed necessitating interference. We record the above submission and dispose of the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS