IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22207 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.YOUSAF, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.METHEENPILLAI, KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTIKATTUKARA P.O., PATHALAM, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SMT.P.A.ANEESHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANI PURAM POLICE STATION, ALWAYE. 2. SREELAL, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PONNARAM, MUPPATHATHADAM P.O., KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. MADHU, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PONNARAM, MUPPATHADAMO P.O., KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. SUNIL KUMAR, PURNAMI NIVAS, PONNARAM, MUPPATHADAM P.O., KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R2TO4 SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) FOR R2TO4 BY SR.G.P.SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVE COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1 COPY OF THE BUILDING PRMIT GRANTED BY THE KADANGALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE RENEWED PERMIT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(d) COPY OF PETITION DATED 2.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY US BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R3(e) COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2..11.2011 SUBMITTED BY US BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER IN APPEAL NO.617/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNEMNT DTD 29.10.11. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.22207 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Harilal, J. Petitioner is the co-owner and in possession of 50 cents of land in Sy.No.135/4 of Kadungalloor village in Paravur taluk. He intends to construct a commercial building in the said land and has obtained Ext.P1 statutory building permit from Kadungalloor grama panchayat for the said construction. Ext.P1 has been renewed by Ext.P2 and according to the petitioner, building permit is in currency. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 2 to 4, who have no right over the property, along with some persons trespassed into the construction site of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner and his workers and also obstructed the construction works. They threatened the petitioner saying that, if the work is not stopped, the consequence would be serious. Further alleged that even though the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 complaint before the first respondent seeking police protection to continue the construction works, he has not taken any action on Ext.P3 W.P.(C).NO.22207 OF 2011 : 2 : complaint. 2. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit contending that the proposed construction is not in accordance with Ext. P1 permit and even though the permit was obtained for construction of a commercial building, the real intention is to construct a godown. Their apprehension is that after the completion of the building, goods vehicles will cause traffic congestion in the road leading to the alleged godown. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents 2 to 4 have challenged Ext.P1 permit before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has dismissed it on a finding that it is a premature appeal. The counsel further submits that W.P.(C)No.30280/2011 challenging the order passed by the appellate authority is still pending before this Court. The learned Government Pleader submits that the apprehension of the people in the locality is that after the completion of the building, if it is a godown, heavy vehicles may cause traffic congestion in the roads in that locality. W.P.(C).NO.22207 OF 2011 : 3 : 4. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. It is seen that the competent authority has issued a permit for construction of the building in accordance with law and that permit is still in currency. So long as the permit stands valid, the petitioner has the right to make constructions in accordance with Ext.P1 permit. Therefore the apprehension that the real intention is to construct a godown is also premature one as construction has been completed up to the foundation level only. Therefore we are inclined to grant police protection to complete the construction strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the panchayat subject to the following observations: a. This order will not stand in the way of the operation of the order which would be passed in W.P.(C)No.30280/2011 pending before this Court. b. If the petitioner violates Ext.P1 permit, respondent panchayath is at liberty to take action in accordance with law. c. The Pollution Control Board is also at liberty to take W.P.(C).NO.22207 OF 2011 : 4 : appropriate actions in accordance with law on the complaint, if pending, before the Pollution Control Board. 5. Therefore subject to the observations made above, the first respondent is directed to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and his men for completing the construction of the building in his own premises in accordance with Ext.P1 permit. In short, we make it clear that this direction will stand automatically withdrawn, if this Court or any other competent authority stays operation of the permit and this judgment will not stand in the way of the panchayath initiating appropriate action either during the course of the construction or after the construction on the basis of the alleged violation of the permit conditions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl