IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6281 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.KRISHNA PILLAI, KALPANA HOUSE, DECENT JUNCTION, MUGHATHALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION. 3. RAJMOHAN, SECRETARY, LOADING & UNLOADING GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (CITU), NELLIMUKKU BRANCH, KOLLAM. 4. HAFEEZ, PRESIDENT, QUILON DISTRICT HEAD LOAD GENERAL WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, KOLLAM. 5. RAJU, KANIKKAVILA HOUSE, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM. 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS' WELFARE FUND OFFICE OF THE DIST. WELFARE OFFICER, KOLLAM. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DT. 17.3.07. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT. 2.5.2009. EXT.P3 COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DT. 2.12.09. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER DT. 20.2.10. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 6281 of 2010 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for the following relief: “direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner and his workers for enjoying the property in Sy.No. 4/1, 2 & 5/1, 2 in Kollam West Village and also for constructing the building as permitted under Ext.P3 including unloading of construction materials from the illegalities of respondents 3 to 5 and their workers by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner purchased 4.45 ares of land vide Ext.P1 Sale Deed. Ext.P2 is W.P.(C).No. 6281 of 2010 2 the tax receipt. He applied to the Corporation of Kollam for permission to construct a building in the said property. Ext.P3 is the building permission given by the Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner has applied for electricity connection and remitted the fees also. 3. The 5th respondent is conducting a Milma booth in 0.25 cents of property on the northern side of the property of the petitioner. He, along with a local Corporation Counselor, one Mr.Venugopal, who belongs to C.P.I.(M), approached the petitioner and informed that the 5th respondent will not be able to conduct the Milma Booth any more as the property in which he is conducting the Milma booth is notified for acquisition for widening the road. They asked the petitioner to purchase the said 0.25 cents of land for Rs. 5 Lakhs. The petitioner submits that the property of 0.25 cents will not fetch more than Rs.25,000/- The petitioner was threatened. He filed Ext.P4 complaint before respondents 1 and 2. It is further submitted that respondents 3 and 5 and their workers prevented W.P.(C).No. 6281 of 2010 3 the officers of the Electricity Board even from entering the property of the petitioner when they came for giving connection to the petitioner. When the petitioner attempted to unload some construction materials, the workers of respondents 3 and 5 obstructed the same demanding huge amount from the petitioner. Petitioner is prepared to give the amount as fixed by the 6th respondent. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, respondent No.6 as also the learned Government Pleader. There is no counter as such filed by the 5th respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent in respect of 0.25 cents of property. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that the 5th respondent will not obstruct the petitioner. He apprehends obstruction from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not obstruct the running of the Milma booth by the 5th respondent. We record the above submissions. W.P.(C).No. 6281 of 2010 4 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows. If there is any obstruction by respondents 3 to 5 for the construction of the building of the petitioner as permitted under Ext.P3, including unloading materials for the construction of the building respondents 1 and 2 will give adequate police protection for the petitioner and his workers. We make it clear that under the cover of this order, the petitioner will not obstruct the functioning of the Milma booth by the 5th respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm