IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27264 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANTO N.J., NEYYAN HOUSE, POST CHEMMANNUR, KUNNAMMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM.PIN-680 503 2. RAJAN STHANAPARAMBIL, STHANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMMANNUR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 517 R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.PRASAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.27264/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17/01/2011 P2 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 05/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY. P3 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 08/09/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARTHAT VILLAGE. R2(B) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE RDO, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 27264 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Petitioner who has been issued with Ext.P2 building permit by the Kunnamkulam Municipality for the construction of a commercial building on his property in Arthat village has approached this court seeking police protection for carrying out the construction on the strength of Ext.P2 in view of what is described as obstruction raised by the 2nd respondent who is described as a neighbour. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit . It is contended therein that the petitioner's intention is not to construct a commercial building but is to excavate soil from his property in a large scale and thereby to cause loss of lateral support of the properties lying adjacent to the petitioner's property including that of the 2nd respondent. It is also contended that several people of the locality complained about the excavation of large quantities of soil from his property without permission from the statutory authorities (Geologist) WP(C).27264/2011 2 and filed representations to the authorities such as village officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer not to permit the petitioner to do the unauthorised digging of earth and removal of soil from the property. It is also contended that the statutory authorities who considered the objection raised by the 2nd respondent and the neighbouring people have objected to the removal of soil by the petitioner from his property. He refers to the judgment of this court in Thilakan vs. Circle Inspect of Police 2008 (1) KLT 141) and contends that for the removal of even ordinary earth police protection cannot be granted. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.N.J.Johnson, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. We have also heard the submissions of Sri.M.k.Aboobacker, learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions. Mr.Aboobacker on the basis of the instructions from the police submitted that enquiring into the complaint submitted by the petitioner, petitioner and the 2nd respondent was summoned before the police station. Before the police station the 2nd respondent submitted that if the petitioner is having statutory permit and licence for carrying out the WP(C).27264/2011 3 activities proposed by him, the 2nd respondent will not raise any objection. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the intention of the petitioner is not to carry out the construction of the building as per Ext.P2 but to remove earth in large scale and to transport the same. This will result in properties including that of the 2nd respondent losing lateral support . Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no intention to remove soil from the petitioner's property except to the extent necessary for the laying the foundation and basement for the proposed building. What is intended is strictly in accordance with Ext.P2 permit. We record the submissions of Sri.Johnson. In view of the submissions of Sri.Johnson that the intention of the petitioner is only to construct the commercial building permitted by the Municipality under Ext.P2, we are of the view that the apprehension of the 2nd respondent that there will be large scale removal of soil resulting in losing lateral support of the 2nd respondent's property is without basis. The 2nd respondent has no right to obstruct the construction of the building strictly in accordance with the plan which is approved by the Municipality and Ext.P2 permit issued by the Municipality. WP(C).27264/2011 4 3. We dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to afford protection to the petitioner for the limited purpose of construction of the commercial building upon the petitioner's property in accordance with the plan approved by the Municipality (plan in respect of which Ext.P2 is granted). We clarify that the police protection directions have been issued only against the 2nd respondent and for the construction of the building in terms of Ext.P2 and not for any large scale removal of soil. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE WP(C).27264/2011 5