IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23437 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E. ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. EBRAHIMKUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER, ROYAL MARK, NO.63, MANGALAM NAGAR, MANGAD.P.O., KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL XAVIER SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLLAM WEST, KOLLAM-691001. 5. ANTONY PATRICK, THUNDUPARAMBU, LIGHT HOUSE, ROAD, THANKASSERY, KOLLAM-691001. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 307 OF 2011 DATED 2-2-11 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT. 8-2-11 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSON CERTIFICATE DT. 9-2-11 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMISSION DT. 4-12-10 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DT. 3-8-09 ISSUED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF VALIDITY PERIOD OF THEPERMISSION DT. 18-5- 11 ISSUED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 11-8-2011 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 11-8-11 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXT.P7 COMPLAINT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 23437 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions for police protection for making construction activities upon his immovable property covered by Ext.P1 title document. The allegation of the petitioner is that though the proposed constructions are lawful and have been permitted by the local authority Corporation of Kollam under Ext.P4 building permit, the 5th respondent and persons under him are raising unnecessary obstructions alleging that the proposed construction encroaches into a purambokku canal. Even though notice was served on the 5th respondent by special messenger he had not turned up before this court to resist this writ petition. All the averments in the writ petition thus stand established by non-traverse as against the party respondent. The learned Govt. Pleader who was WP(C).23437/11 -2- asked to seek instructions regarding the correctness of the averments in the writ petition from the 3rd respondent station house officer and the 4th respondent Village Officer, submitted on the basis of instructions received that though in the beginning the 5th respondent obstructed saying that the proposed construction involves encroachment of purambokku canal, at the moment the obstructions have been withdrawn and there is no law and order situation warranting issuance of police protection directions. 2. The question we are called upon to decide is whether there is warrant for issuance of the directions sought for under relief No.1 in the writ petition which is as follows: “Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 2 and 3 to provide necessary, adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and his workers and to restrain the 5th respondent and his henchmen from illegally obstructing the construction activity in the petitioner's property.” The above question, according to us, can be safely WP(C).23437/11 -3- answered in favour of the petitioner. 3. We allow this writ petition as we find that the constructions which are proposed by the petitioner are lawful. Accordingly, it is ordered that in case any obstruction is made by the 5th respondent or anybody acting under him to the constructions which are carried out by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent shall ensure that those obstructions are removed and the petitioner is able to carry out the constructions free of any obstructions. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-