IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 27832 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.N. RAGHUCHANDRAN NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.S.I.PROPERTY (KERALA) PVT. LTD., SILVER OAKS, GOLF LINKS ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. DR.CHELLA DURAI RAJ, PRESIDENT, ALTHARA NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 5. SRI.DIVAKARAN NAIR, SECRETARY, ALTHARA NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SRI.V. VELAYUDHAN THAMPI, NEW TC 30/203, A STREET, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. WP(C).No. 27832 of 2010(D) 7. SRI.P.K.PADMANABHAN PILLAI, OLD T.C.15/30-1, A STREET, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 10. 8. SRI.M. RAMACHANDRAN, NEW T.C.30/198, MAIN STREET, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. *ADDL. R9 IMPLEADED ADDL. R9: THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. * ADDL. R9 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02/11/2010 IN WP(C). R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R5 TO R8 BY SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. ADDL. R9 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27832 of 2010(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE LAND OWNER IN FAVOUR OF THE COMPANY DATED 27/05/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.TP2/BA/2162/07 DATED 02/03/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 11824/2009 DATED 07/04/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TP2-BA-2162/07 DATED 29/09/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO.1060/2009 DATED 06/07/2009 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, SASTHAMANGALAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B7-69938/09 DATED 04/01/2010 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TVM. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02/09/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R8(1): COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE JOINT SECRETARY DATED 04/09/2008 VIDE NO.36183/RA2/0/LSGD. EXT.R8(2): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY TO THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT ON 30/07/2010. EXT.R8(3): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF ALTHARA NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION DATED 31/07/2008 VIDE NO.ANRA-1/2008 TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER, KERALA. EXT.R8(4): COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT VIDE NO.10650/10/M(LSG) DATED 05/08/2010 PERTAINS TO EXHIBIT R8(3). //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to grant adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, his staff and workers to carry out the construction work undertaken as per Ext.P1 power of attorney from the threat and obstruction of respondents 4 to 8 and their henchmen in the interest of justice. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.S.I.Property (Kerala) Pvt.Ltd. The Company is putting up a multi storied residential building. The land owner executed Ext.P1 power of attorney in favour of the Company. Ext.P2 building permit is obtained from the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram for the construction of a multi storied building. Later, a stop memo dated 01/07/2008 was issued by W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 2 the Corporation to the land owner alleging certain irregularities. The land owner approached this Court by filing a writ petition to complete the proceedings initiated on the basis of the stop memo. This Court, by Ext.P3 judgment, directed the Corporation to finalise the proceedings. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P4 order was issued cancelling the stop memo. The 5th respondent filed a complaint before the District Collector stating that the proposed construction was causing difficulties. Subsequent to the same, Ext.P5 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer, as instructed by the District Collector. The land owner was heard by the District Collector and after perusing the documents submitted by the land owner, the District Collector was convinced that the complaint raised by the 5th respondent was baseless. Accordingly the complaint filed by the 5th respondent was dismissed. It is stated that respondents 4 and 5 are the office bearers of the Residents Association and respondents 6 to 8 are neighbouring property owners. The Company started preliminary work in the first week of August 2010. Respondents 4 to 8 threatened the workers of the Company. They are not able to carry out the work. W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 3 4. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 5 to 8 wherein they have produced Ext.R8(1) to R8(4). It is inter alia stated as follows: The owner of the building claimed that he was putting up the building in an extent of 14.5 cents. According to the Association, the total extent would be only 13.5 cents. Exts.P5 and P6 have no bearing relating to the case in question. When the plan was submitted on behalf of the owner Leela Devi, the Registered Engineer has given an undertaking that the development will be carried out as per the approved plan and permit. There is reference to attempts made to demolish the existing building and cracks being found in the building of the residence of the deponent and also one Raveendran Nair. The petitioner intends to construct a ten storied building. It is stated that there is no provision for proper drainage. About 25 people are having drainage system flowing from eastern side. If the building is erected over this drainage there will not be any means for clearing the debris passing through it. It is also stated that there is a road on the northern side by the name 'Althara Road' and on the northern side of the road there is a school, a Devi temple and a hall. Due to the density of the residents already occupying the area, the 5 feet road which is now situated W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 4 on the northern side, cannot accomplish passengers' need. If the building is put up, flow of air and light would be completely blocked. They filed Ext.R8(2) representation followed by further representation Ext.R8(3) acknowledged by Ext.R8(4). It is specifically stated that the respondents had never obstructed any work that has been carried out. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. It is inter alia stated that the petitioner has demolished all the building manually. It is stated there is no fresh memo after 31/7/2008. The building permit was granted as per the Building Rules after showing sufficient parking facility. The petitioner shall undertake the construction taking all possible care and in the event of any drainage line in the work site, it will be relocated without any damage. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the party respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. We entertained a doubt on the basis of the submission of the learned senior counsel for the party respondents that a stop memo is still in existence. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would point out that as of now there is no stop memo against the W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 5 petitioner. The petitioner is armed with the permit issued. The party respondents would also state in the counter affidavit that they had never physically obstructed the construction. 7. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the petitioner deserves relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to grant effective police protection to the petitioner, his staff and workers to carry out the work undertaken on the strength of Ext.P1 power of attorney as against any threat or obstruction from respondents 4 to 8 as long as the petitioner does the construction in accordance with the permit and any other permission which is obtained. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of respondents 4 to 8 peacefully agitating or from approaching any competent court/forum, if they feel aggrieved by the activities of the petitioner or the permit granted in favour of the petitioner. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 6 W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 7 W.P.C.No.27832 of 2010 8 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010