IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15360 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. K.G.RAJAPPAN, RAJ C RSHMI BHAVAN, VALLAM KULAM KIZHAKKU MURI ERAVIPERUR P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. CHELLAMMA,W/O. K.G.RAJAPPAN RAJ C RSHMI BHAVAN, VALLAM KULAM KIZHAKKU MURI ERAVIPERUR P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVALLA. 3. S.MOHANAN CHANNAMALA KOMMATTIL VEEDU ERAVIPERUR MURI, ERAVIPERUR VILLAGE THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. SURESH KUMAR, KAVUM MURIYIL VEEDU VALLAMKULAM EAST,ERAVIPERUR VILLAGE PRESENTLY WORKING AT VALLAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SRI.T.P.PRADEEP FOR R3,4 SR.GP MR.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 15360/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY FO THE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS 67/08 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.14.3.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONERS TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.15360 of 2008-C -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. They are constructing a residential building. The third respondent was its contractor. After some works were completed by the said respondent, some difference of opinion arose between the petitioners and the said respondent. Now, his contract is terminated and the petitioners are proceeding with the construction by engaging another contractor. While so, the petitioners submit, the third respondent tried to cause obstruction to the construction of the building. He was supported by the 4th respondent, who is a local politician. The petitioners have already filed a suit before the civil court for recovering the damages suffered by them, owing to the alleged breach of contract by the third respondent. The third respondent has also filed a suit to recover the amounts due to him for the works, he has already done. Initially, there was an injunction in that suit against the petitioners proceeding with the construction till the expert commissioner appointed by the court visits the construction. The commissioner has already visited the site. The petitioners submit, the civil court WPC 15360/08 2 itself has clarified that the said injunction order is no longer in force. Though the police was moved by filing Ext.P2 against the obstruction caused by respondents 3 and 4, they did not extend any help. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate direction to the police to render necessary protection to the petitioners so that they can proceed with the construction. 2. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations against them. According to the third respondent, he is entitled to recover substantial amounts from the petitioners for breach of contract. It is also submitted that they have no intention to cause obstruction to the construction of the building by the petitioners. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction, submitted that at present, there is no law and order problem, warranting interference by the police. It is common case that at present, there is no order of the civil court, restraining the petitioners from proceeding with the construction. We record the submission of respondents 3 and 4 that they have no intention to obstruct the petitioners proceeding with the construction of their residential building. In violation of their undertaking, if any problem is created by them, the petitioners may bring it to the notice of the 2nd respondent. In that event, the said WPC 15360/08 3 respondent shall remove the obstruction, if the allegation is found correct. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 03.06.2008 M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sta WPC 15360/08 4