IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24164 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PRAMODKUMAR PILLAI, PERUNNILATHU VEEDU, PAIKUZHY, OACHIRA P.O., REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, NEDUVELIKONATHU VALIYA VEEDU, PLACHERY P.O., PUNALUR. 2. P.T.PRAKASH BABU, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGALOW, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR-691305. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR-691305. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR-691305. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 4. A.K.NAZIR, A.K.FOOTWEAR, OPPOSITE POST OFFICE, PUNALUR-691305. 5. AJEESH @ NISSAR, BROTHERS GIFT HOUSE, NEAR SBT, PUNALUR-691305. 6. SUNIL, FOX T.V., HILL LODGE BUILDING, NEAR POST OFFICE, PUNALUR-691305. 7. ADDL.R7- THE SECRETARY, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY. (ADDL.R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.10.2011 IN WP(C).24164/2011) ADV. SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN FOR 4-6. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR ADDL.R7 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K.ABOOBACKER FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DT. 29-7-2010 ISSUED BY THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITI9ONERS EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DT. 14-9-2010 ISSUED BY THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONERS EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DT. 29-3-2010 ISSUED BY THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONERS EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOC DT. 5-2-2008 ISSUED BY THE NH DEPARTMENT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REVISED BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPALITY EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 29-8-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF COKMPLAINT DT. 30-8-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 17-9-2011 ISSUED BY THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AND ACCOMPANYING ORDER DT. 25-3-2011 ISSUED BY THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY EXT.R4(2) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 12-8- 11 AND THE REPLY 7-9-11 EXT.R4(3) TRUE COPIES OF THE LATEST PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING AND THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 24164 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 for affording police protection for doing the work of laying flooring tiles in the open space left in front of the petitioners' building. Allegation is that the respondents 4 to 6 are causing obstruction to the work of laying tiles in a space owned by the petitioner, inspite of the fact that the construction of the building was completed on the strength of Exts. P1 and P2 permits issued by the 7th respondent, in accordance with the approved plan and Ext.P3 completion/occupancy certificate was issued by the 7th respondent. According to the petitioners, they have also obtained NOC from the Executive Engineer, NH Division, Kollam for construction of the building, as evident from Ext.P4. It is stated that the restriction imposed in Ext. P4 WP(C). 24164/11 -2- is only to leave 5 metre space from the road margin, and the tiles are being laid only after leaving such space. It is contended that unless the front portion of the building is laid with flooring tiles it will be difficult to enter into the building, because of rain water accumulation and the area becoming marshy. It is stated that, when the obstruction was caused the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 complaint and a further complaint was submitted to the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P7. Since no action was taken, this writ petition is filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 to 6 it is contended that the petitioner had constructed a temporary structure in front of the building unauthorisedly and the protection now sought for is to complete such unauthorised construction and for laying tiles on the floor of the unauthorised structure. The respondents have produced Ext.R4(1) notice and provisional order issued under Section WP(C). 24164/11 -3- 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act to the petitioners. From Ext.R4(1) it is evident that the Municipality had initiated proceedings with respect to unauthorised construction of a temporary structure in front of the building in question. Further, referring to Ext.R4(2), it is contended that the Municipality had taken a clear stand that the temporary structure in question is constructed in an unauthorised manner. Hence it is contended that the police protection sought for cannot be granted, since it will facilitate the petitioner to do an act which is not authorised under law. 3. The petitioners have produced Ext.P8 letter issued by the Additional 7th respondent, which will indicate that the petitioners have approached the Municipality seeking permission for putting up a temporary structure in front of the building in question. In Ext.P8, the Municipality had replied that, for considering such application the petitioners have to submit revised plan. Learned counsel appearing for WP(C). 24164/11 -4- the petitioners submitted that a revised plan in compliance of the request will be submitted and that he will seek permission from the Municipality for the proposed temporary structure. 4. From the facts and circumstances narrated and from the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are convinced that the petitioners have put up a temporary structure in front of the building in question, and that they want to complete laying of floor tiles in the area covered under the temporary structure. It is evident that the Municipality had initiated proceedings under Section 406 and now the Municipality is considering an application for regularising the construction. Hence we cannot permit the petitioners to complete the laying of tiles in the floor of the unauthorised structure. We are of the opinion that if the petitioners are doing the laying of floor tiles after getting the requisite permission from the 7th respondent for construction WP(C). 24164/11 -5- of the temporary structure, then the respondents 4 to 6 have no manner of right to object such works. 5. under the above mentioned circumstance we dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 to 3 to take action to remove illegal obstructions if any caused to the works of the petitioner in connection with laying of flooring tiles in front of the building, provided the petitioner gets permission/consent from the Municipality (7th respondent) for putting up the temporary structure in front of the building in question or to the extent of regularising the construction already made. 6. We make it clear that the work in question can be permitted only in accordance with the stipulations imposed by the National Highway Authorities through Ext.P4 or in accordance with strict terms of the approval by the 7th respondent. We further make it clear that the above direction will not stand in the way of the National Highway WP(C). 24164/11 -6- Authority taking any action if it is noticed that the construction is made in violation of the terms stipulated under Ext.P4. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-