IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14276 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.V.ALIAS, S/O. K.U.VARGHESE, AGED 36 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ADAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (PVT.) LTD.,DOOR NO.85(A), THACHIL TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VADAKARA RURAL, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. P.M.ALIKKUTTY, S/O. ABDU, THEERAM, KOYILANDY P.O., NEAR NEW BUS STAND, KOYILANDY. 5. DHAINABA, W/O. P.M.ALIKKUTTY, THEERAM, KOYILANDY P.O., NEAR NEW BUS STAND, KOYILANDY. 6. FARIS, S/O. P.M.ALIKKUTTY, THEERAM, KOYILANDY P.O., NEAR NEW BUS STAND, KOYILANDY. G.P. SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4-6 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R4-6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14276 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 28.1.2007 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE LAND OWNERS (INCLUDING R4) EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY THE KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 17.3.2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 30.3.2010. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF EXT.P4 COMPLANT ISSUED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT AND COPY TO THE R2 & R3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY// K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 14276 of 2010 H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs. i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner and his workers to carry out the construction work strictly in terms of Ext.P2 approved Plan without any obstruction from respondents 4 to 6 or their henchmen; ii) issue a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 and issue orders urgently providing sufficient police protection to the petitioner and his workers from respondents 4 to 6 and their henchmen so as to complete the W.P.(C).No. 14276 of 2010 2 construction work in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 without further delay. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the Managing Director of a private limited company engaged in the business of construction activities and land development etc. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with one Mariyakutty and 8 others, including the 4th respondent, by which the petitioner agreed to develop the land having an extent of 80 cents to construct a multi- storied building. Ext.P1 is the agreement. Petitioner obtained permit from the Municipality. The building plan is Ext.P2. He started the work also. But the petitioner is not in a position to carry out the work due to the obstruction caused by the 4th respondent, his wife and son. His house is situated just behind the commercial building. As per the approved plan, 5 meter space is provided in order to get access to his house. The approved plan is not challenged by him. 3. But respondents 4 to 6 are obstructing the petitioner from carrying out the construction. The 4th respondent required 15 meter W.P.(C).No. 14276 of 2010 3 width road access to his property, then only he will get permission from the Municipality for construction of flat in the said property. The land owners, including the 4th respondent, issued legal notice to the petitioner. It is stated that even now the party respondents are not willing to permit the petitioner to carry out the work. He filed a complaint before the first respondent, 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the party respondents. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Senior counsel for the party respondents, Shri.K.P. Dandapani and the learned Government Pleader. 6. Even according to the petitioner the 4th respondent is a party to the agreement. The land owners, with whom the petitioner has entered into Ext.P1 agreement, have issued notices to terminate the agreement. 7. Whatever that be, the issue is when the agreement under which the petitioner sets up his legal right to carry on the construction work, which itself has been terminated by the land owners, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the question. We further notice W.P.(C).No. 14276 of 2010 4 the argument of the learned Senior counsel that Ext.P1 contains an arbitration clause. We feel that it may not be appropriate for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction to entertain this matter. 8. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in law to approach appropriate forum, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, we make it clear that in case there is complaint of commission of any cognizable offence by the party respondents, the official respondents will take action in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm