IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11076 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. JAI HIND TRADERS, 29/621-K, JAIN TOWER, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, DIVYA KUMAR JAIN. 2. M/S. NAVIN TRADING CO., 29/621-J, JAIN TOWER, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682 019, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGANATORY, DIVYA KUMAR JAIN. BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.JAISON JOSEPH SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-PIN- 683 101. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-PIN- 683 101. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101 4. SRI. KUNJUMON, S/O. BEERAN, ONPATHINGAL HOUSE, MALIKAMPEEDIKA, ALANGAD, ALUVA-683 511. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VENUGOPAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.11076/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE INJUNCTION IN I.A.NO.348/2011 IN O.S.NO.78 OF 2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR. P2 COPY OF THE 12 PHOTOGRAPHS. P3 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.199/2011 BEFORE THE ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 15/3/2011 WITH CONTRACT NO.212799. P5(A) COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 15/3/2011 WITH CONTRACT NO.212800. P5(B) COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 01/3/2011. P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/02/2011 IN WP(C)NO.17037/2010. P7 NIL P8 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/4/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 3/5/2011. P9 COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2005-06 FOR JAI HIND TRADERS. P9(A) COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2006-07 FOR JAI HIND TRADERS. P9(B) COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2007-08 FOR JAI HIND TRADERS. P9(C) COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2008-09. P9(D) COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2009-10. P10 COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR THE PARTNER FOR THE YEAR 2005-06. P10(A) COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2006-07. P10(B) COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2008-09. P10(C) COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR 2009-10 ISSUED TO THE PARTNER. P11 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 29/10/2009. P12 COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DATED 3/12/2010 BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN. P13 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/1/2011 IN O.P.NO.237/2010 OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. P14 COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 1/3/2011. P15 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 14/06/2011 NUMBERED AS NO.A4-6/11-12. sts 3/- WP(C)NO.11076/2011 -3- RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/7/2010 OF THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R4(B) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22/3/2011 OF THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R4(C) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/4/2010 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION IN O.P.NO.237 OF2010. R4(D) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/4/2011 OF THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R4(E) COPY OF THE STOP MEMO OF THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R4(F) COPY OF THE STOP MEMO OF THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R4(G) COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R4(H) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPOUND WALL BEFORE IT COLLAPSED. R4(I) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEBRIS OF THE COLLAPSED COMPOUND WALL. R4(J) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEAD BODY OF A LADY FOUND BENEATH THE DEBRIS OF THE COMPOUND WALL. R4(K) COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN IN O.P.NO.237 OF 2010. R4(L) COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WP(C)NO.17037/2010 DATED 1/6/2010 FILED BEFORE THIS HONO COURT (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) R4(M) COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 15/6/2010 FILED IN WP(C) NO.17037/2010 BY THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH(WITHOUT EXHIBITS). R4(N) COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN WP(C)NO.17037/2010 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) R4(O) COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREPARED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 24/3/2011 FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE THE LEARNED OMBUDSMAN IN O.P.NO.237 OF2010. R4(P) COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.78 OF 2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT,NORTH PARAVOOR. R4(Q) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19/3/2011 OBTAINED FROM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD(KSEB) /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 11076 of 2011-H ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to enable the petitioners to run their business against illegal obstruction that is raised by the 4th respondent and men acting under him. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, it is submitted that the present controversy is only about construction/re- construction/repair of a damaged compound wall around the property of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that an accident had occurred. A crane had accidentally hit the compound wall. The compound wall had collapsed and death of a passer by had occurred under the debris. 3. The 4th respondent, on the contrary, asserts that it was not a case of the compound wall being hit by a crane. The compound wall had collapsed on its own on account of inadequate foundation. The petitioners have a further grievance W.P.(C) No. 11076 of 2011 -: 2 :- that in addition to what was destroyed by the crane, a substantial portion of the compound wall was pulled down by the miscreants under the leadership of the 4th respondent. 4. Be that as it may, we do not think it necessary to delve deeper into those controversies. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, at the moment, the petitioners shall be satisfied if adequate, sufficient and effective police protection is granted to enable the petitioners to construct/re-construct/repair the compound wall which has now collapsed. According to the petitioners, for a distance of 19 Mtrs. the wall stands collapsed now. The prayer is only that adequate and sufficient police protection may be granted to the petitioners to undertake the said construction. 5. Initially an objection was raised that the petitioners do not have a valid building permit issued by the local authority to enable them to undertake such construction. Now Ext.P15 building permit has been issued by the Alangad Grama Panchayat dated 14/6/11 which permits the petitioners to construct a compound wall for a length of 19 Mtrs. subject to appropriate conditions as per an approved plan which was W.P.(C) No. 11076 of 2011 -: 3 :- submitted to the Panchayat. The learned counsel for the petitioners now only submits that the petitioners may be permitted to undertake that construction so that the property of the petitioners can be secured. If necessary for running the business, the petitioners may be permitted to come later to this Court to seek police protection. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the light of Ext.P15 permit issued to the petitioners which is not challenged, the police are willing to afford adequate and sufficient protection to the petitioners to undertake the construction strictly in accordance with Ext.P15. 7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent still expresses an apprehension that the compound wall to be re- constructed/repaired may also fall down later posing danger to the passers using the abutting way. 8. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Ext.P15 building permit has been obtained by the petitioners. We have no reason to assume that the approved plan is not valid or safe or that the conditions imposed by the Panchayat are not sufficient to secure the interests of those who pass by the side of W.P.(C) No. 11076 of 2011 -: 4 :- the compound wall. We are satisfied that the petitioners can be permitted to undertake the construction strictly in accordance with Ext.P15. The 4th respondent or his men have no rights to object such construction. In the nature of the vehemence with which the prayer is opposed, we are satisfied that it is not sufficient merely to accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that it is necessary to issue specific directions. 9. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed in part. (b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford adequate, sufficient and effective protection to the petitioners to undertake the construction strictly in accordance with the terms of Ext.P15. (c) We make it clear that the option of the Panchayat to supervise the construction and to ensure that it is strictly in terms of Ext.P15 building permit shall remain unfettered. (d). We further observe that it shall be open to the petitioners, if necessary at a later stage to come before this Court seeking protection if there be any illegal obstruction to the running of their establishment. W.P.(C) No. 11076 of 2011 -: 5 :- (e) Needless to say, the option of the 4th respondent or any other to challenge Ext.P15 permit shall remain unfettered by this judgment. (f) If Ext.P15 is not in operation, needless to say, the protection hereby granted shall not operate. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge