IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15882 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SANTHAMMA THAMPI,SIJIL COTTAGE, PALLICKAL KIZHAKKEKKARA MURI,THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA-7,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,SAJI VARGHESE,MANDAPATHUMKUZHIYIL, PALLICKAL EAST MURI,THEKKEKARA(P.O),MAVELIKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR, SMT.T.SUDHA DEVI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MAVELIKKARA THEKEKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLARIMANGALAM(P.O),REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY – 695 107. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION,MAVELIKKARA- 695 101. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MAVELIKKARA- 695 101. 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR- 689 121. 5. SHAJI,S/O.DANIEL,PALLIMEENATHETHIL HOUSE, PALLICKAL KIZHAKKEKARA MURI,THEKKEKARA(P.O), MAVELIKKARA-695 107. R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH, R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R5 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI.A.R.DILEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15882/2011-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REVENUE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/03/2011 FORWARDED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 29/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.5. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.5. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09/06/2011 FORWARDED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 09/06/2011 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE PLAN AND SKETCH SUBMITTED BY R.5. ON RECEIPT DTD. 25/03/2011 BY THE R.1. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/07/2011 BY THE PANCHAYATH. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED ALONG WITH THE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE, NATURE AND STAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED ON 15/06/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.15882 of 2011-I -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 5th day of July 2011 Judgment Bhavadasan, J. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs : i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to extent necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner and the first respondent to enforce Exts.P5 and P6 orders issued by the 1st respondent directing the 5th respondent to stop the illegal building construction. ii. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to extend necessary and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and others with her from the criminal and wanton acts of the 5th respondent and his associates. iii.To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to pull down the illegal constructions made by the 5th respondent violating the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2011 and varying from the building plan approved by the 1st respondent panchayat.” WPC 15882/11 2 2. The petitioner and the 5th respondent are neighbours. The 5th respondent was undertaking certain construction work in the property belonging to him in accordance with the approved plan. During the construction, the petitioner alleged that there was violation of the Building Rules and she brought it to the notice of the first respondent panchayat. Thereupon, the panchayat issued Ext.P5 stop memo to the fifth respondent. But, ignoring the stop memo, the fifth respondent continued the construction work, violating the approved plan. The first respondent, thereafter issued Ext.P6 order to the 5th respondent directing to stop the illegal construction. The first respondent also sought the assistance of the second respondent for implementation of its order. But, no assistance whatsoever was provided by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court for appropriate reliefs. 3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that Exts.P5 and P6 do not disclose the WPC 15882/11 3 nature of violation of the Building Rules alleged to be committed by him. According to him, the allegations raised against him by the petitioner are without any basis and he is carrying out the construction in accordance with the approved plan. 4. The first respondent has also filed an affidavit, stating that the panchayat had directed the 5th respondent to submit the approved plan and sketch to the panchayat. The plan and sketch so submitted is produced and marked as Ext.R1(a). Thereafter, the Secretary of the Panchayat personally visited the property and found that the construction was being carried out in violation of Ext.R1(a) plan. The Secretary orally instructed the 5th respondent to dismantle the violative portion of the construction, but the 5th respondent continued the construction in violation of Ext.R1(a) plan. However, upon receipt of Exts.P5 and P6 orders issued by the panchayat, the 5th respondent filed an application before the panchayat stating that he is willing to carry out the construction in accordance with Ext.R1(a). WPC 15882/11 4 Thereafter, when the Secretary again visited the property, the violative portion of the construction was already dismantled. 5. In view of the above statements in the affidavit filed by the first respondent panchayat, the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition stands redressed and no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. However, it is ordered that in case there is any violation in the construction work that is being carried out by the 5th respondent, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek such remedies as are available to her in law. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 15882/11 5