IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 25901 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- C.V.GEORGE, CHERUVALLIKADU, VELIYAKALAM PURAYIDOM, THIRUMALA ALLAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.FEBIN J.VELUKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE ALAPPUZHA AREA COMMITTEE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SHOP UNION BUILDING, MULLAKAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE AREA COMMITTEE CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION (CITU) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OLD BOAT CRUSE ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. 6. THE AREA COMMITTEE DEMOCRATIC YOUTH FEDERATION OF INDIA (DYF) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHUMULLAKKAL EAST, ALAPPUZHA. 7. THE THIRUMALA LOCAL COMMITTEE KERALA STATE KARSHAKA THOYHILALI UNION (KSKTU) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.25901/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23.6.05. EXT.P1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN SKETCH OF THE WORK. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 7.10.06 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS THE CONVENOR. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 6.2.07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLIANT DATED 19.8.08 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED THEREIN. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25901 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the Convener of a beneficiary committee for doing the work of erecting a retaining wall for a portion of the 'Kombankuzhi Padasekharam'. Administrative sanction for doing the said work was granted by the Government as per Exhibit P1 order. The sketch attached to Exhibit P1 would show the location, where the construction is undertaken. Exhibit P2 is the resolution of the committee electing the petitioner to do the work as the Convener. Thereafter, the petitioner started the work. When a portion of the work was over, respondents 4 to 7 started causing obstruction. Therefore, he moved the police by filing Exhibit P4. Alleging that the police did not take any steps to grant protection, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the retaining wall proposed to be constructed is exclusively meant for the benefit of one Shri Mathew Edayadil, who is a political leader. No one else is benefited. So, the local public are opposing the construction of the retaining wall for the benefit of a single person causing substantial loss to the State exchequer. So, this Court may not order any protection to do that work, it is submitted. We heard the learned Government Pleader for W.P.(C)No. 25901/08 -2- the official respondents also. 3. Going by the sketch attached to Exhibit P1, we notice that the retaining wall on the western and northern sides are constructed only for a particular plot. It means a single individual is the beneficiary. But, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exhibit P1 is very much alive and kicking and that the Padasekhara Samithy has stated that it has no objection in constructing the retaining wall. It is also pointed out that the construction is fairly advanced and the party respondents have not moved any authorities against the construction. 4. Having regard to the nature of the construction of retaining wall by expending public funds, that is, it is going to benefit only one single individual, we feel that it is not a fit case for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The petitioner has to invoke the ordinary remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Code of Civil Procedure to redress his grievance. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn