IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10292 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.J.KRISHNAKUMARI, W/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, DIVYA BHAVANAM, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY (VIA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENMONY. 4. SHAJAHAN, S/O.IBRAHIM, CHARIKKINETH, PANAYIVALAYIL, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY (VIA), 689509. 5. R.S.RIYAS, RIYAS BHAVANAM, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY, 689 509. 6. SUNIL, S/O.JALALUDDIN, PANAYIVALAYIL, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY (VIA), 689509. 7. MUHAMMAD SALIM, S/O.SHOUKATH, RIYAS BHAVANAM, PUNTHALA P.O., VENMONY (VIA), 689509. ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE FOR R4 TO 7 SRI.A.V.JOJO FOR R4 TO 7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.10292/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2580 DATED 20.9.1984 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REVENUE RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR 2008 DATED 13.5.2008. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LEASE. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FROM VENMONY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 2.9.2008. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SENT BY THE PETITIONER BY REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.A. To Judge. P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10292 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This writ petition is filed by the owner of the land seeking police protection for construction of a Mobile Tower on the leasehold premises by the tenant, though the tenant as such is not made a party to this writ petition. We thought that since we have been issuing interim protection in similar matters, we did not think it is necessary to differentiate the case from others, merely because it is filed by the owner. Now the construction is over. 2. Today, it is brought to out notice that a writ petition filed by the tenant seeking police protection for construction of the same Mobile Tower had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30th October, 2008, in W.P.(C) No.29820 of 2008. But that fact was suppressed in the present W.P.(C) No.10292 of 2009 2 writ petition. Actually, it is the interest of the tenant to put up a tower, and when his own writ petitions had been dismissed by this Court, the same relief could not have been obtained by the landlord, that too, by suppressing the above facts. In such circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition and direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2000/= (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the respondents by way of cost. Since the construction of the Mobile Tower is already over, it need not be demolished, unless the construction is found to be illegal by any competent authority. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.