IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10721 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, CHITTETHUKUDI HOUSE, EKKUNNUMKARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPUMPADY POLICE STATION. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPUMPADY POLICE STATION. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA. 4. MAITHEEN, S/O.IBRAHIM, INJAKUDY HOUSE, EKKUNNAM KARA, ASAMANNOOR P.O., ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE FOR R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.10721 OF 2009 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FROM THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LINCENCE. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CONSENT LETTER TO FUNCTION THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28.3.2009 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10721 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner seeks for appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary protection for the life and property of the petitioner and to function the industrial unit by developing the property within his compound. 2. The fourth respondent has entered appearance through counsel. According to him, the property was originally purchased jointly and thereafter his right over the property was assigned in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, there was an agreement enabling the fourth respondent to remove the soil. Contrary to the agreement, the petitioner prevented him from removing the soil. If at all there is any civil right for the fourth respondent based on any agreement, and if there is any violation, W.P.(C) No.10721 of 2009 2 it is open to him to approach the Civil Court and obtain necessary prohibitory orders against the petitioner. So far no orders are produced. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is trying to remove the soil, without obtaining necessary sanction from the statutory authorities or from any Court of law. It is made clear that nothing stops the statutory authorities from issuing appropriate prohibitory orders to the petitioner. As the matter stands, petitioner wants to remove the soil. In the absence of any orders prohibiting the said activity by the statutory authorities or competent Civil Court, no physical obstruction shall be caused. Therefore, the police will see that the physical obstruction, if any, caused is removed. However, if there is any statutory order or civil court order, the police will abide by such order. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj.