Disposed

M.P.Abdul Razak v. Hayarunnisa T.P. and Others

Kerala HC19 Nov 2010WP(C)/25253/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection for hospital construction and a declaration of respondent actions as illegal. The court accepted undertakings that no obstruction would occur and directed the police to act only upon specific complaints of physical obstruction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent to afford police protection only if physical obstruction is proven; otherwise dismissed.

M.P.Abdul Razak Vs Hayarunnisa T.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 25253 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------------------

¶8

M.P.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. M.P.MUHAMMED, AGED 49 YEARS, VALAPPIL HOUSE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KODUVALLY INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, KODUVALLY, CALICUT DISTRICT - 673 001.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

----------------------------

¶12

1. HAYARUNNISA T.P., D/O. MOIDEEN T.P., RESIDING AT AL BAHAR MANZIL, HOUSE NO.16/196, VENNAKKAD, KODUVALLY, CALICUT DISTRICT - PIN-673 001.

¶13

2. T.P.MOIDEEN, S/O. T.P.ALI, RESIDING AT AL BAHAR MANZIL, HOUSE NO.16/196, VENNAKKAD, KODUVALLY, CALICUT DISTRICT - PIN-673 001.

¶14

3. RABIYA, W/O. T.P.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT AL BAHAR MANZIL, HOUSE NO.16/196, VENNAKKAD, KODUVALLY, CALICUT DISTRICT- PIN-673 001.

¶15

4. ASHIK FAISAL, S/O. ABDHUL SALAM, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, RESIDING AT ZEPHYRAS HOUSE, CHELAPRAM ROAD, P.O. KAKKODI - 673 611.

¶16

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, PIN-673 001.

..2/-

Kss

..2....

WPC.NO.25253/2010 F

¶21

6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶22

*ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED:

¶23

R7. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

**(ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 13/10/2010 IN WPC)*

¶25

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHATHUKUTTY, SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL. R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA R7 BY ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSPCB.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Kss

¶28

WPC.NO.25253/2010 F

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 6/03/2010 BY THE KODUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶32

P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT OFFICE FOR HAVING REMITTED THE REQUISITE FEE.

¶33

P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE.

¶34

P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR HAVING RECEIVED A PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR POLICE PROTECTION.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ

¶41

==============================

¶42

W.P.(C) NO. 25253 OF 2010

¶43

============================

¶44

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2010

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶47

The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following prayers.

¶48

“i)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 5^th respondent to extend adequate police protection to the petitioner for the construction of a hospital building in re-survey No.144/4 and 142/2 of Koduvally Village and also extend adequate police protection to the property in resurvey No.142/4 and 5 wherein the petitioner is keeping his building materials.

¶49

ii)To declare that the action of the respondents 1 and 4 as instigated by the respondents 2 and 3 and men under them in assaulting the workers of the petitioner including his Manager, causing

¶50

¶51

Wpc 25253/2010

¶52

obstruction to the construction of the hospital building in re-survey No.144/14 and 142/2 of

¶53

Koduvally Village etc. as illegal”.

¶54

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner is constructing a hospital in re-survey No.144/14 and 142/2 of Koduvally Village. He has obtained permits from the requisite authorities and is keeping the building materials in resurvey No. 142/4 and 142/5 of Koduvally Village. The allegation is that respondents 1 to 4 attempted to stall the construction of the building by resorting to legal remedies. Complaints were lodged and by Ext.P3, Additional District Magistrate dismissed the petition finding that petitioner is undertaking the construction in accordance with law. Respondents having failed to stall the construction are resorting to muscle power and regularly assaulting the workers of the petitioner.

¶55

A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 to 4 denying the allegation that they have obstructed and threatened the petitioner.

¶56

We heard the learned counsel for the parties. When the matter was heard in an earlier occasion, a doubt was entertained

¶57

Wpc 25253/2010 3

¶58

as to whether the petitioner has to acquire consent from the Pollution Control Board. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stage of consent to operate has not reached and at present, petitioner is only putting up the building and he may use it for other purpose. Pollution Control Board was impleaded and was asked to get instructions in the matter.

¶59

Today, when the matter came up, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been granted No Objection to establish a hospital on 1.11.2010. The learned counsel for the party respondent also would submit that they are not obstructing and they were only concerned with possible nuisance which may emanate from the hospital and they are only taking legal steps and they do not intend to physically obstruct the construction of the hospital. We record the submission of the parties and we direct that in case there is any complaint of physical obstruction by respondents 1 to 4 to the construction of the hospital building in re-survey No.144/14 and 142/2 of Koduvally Village is brought to the notice of 5^th respondent, the 5^th respondent will look into it and if it is found that there is obstruction, he shall afford protection to the petitioner as against respondents 1 to 4

¶60

Wpc 25253/2010 4

¶61

for carrying out the construction of the hospital building in the re-survey No.144/14 and 142/2 of Koduvally Village in accordance with all permit and permissions granted by all statutory authorities. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that they will not obstruct the petitioner in the matter of keeping the building materials in resurvey No. 142/4 and 142/5 of Koduvally Village. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶62

K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶63

M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE

¶64

lgk

M.P.Abdul Razak v. Hayarunnisa T.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Abdul Razak v. Hayarunnisa T.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Poyili Leela

Pallipurath Musthafa Moosa Vs K.S.E.B by Its Secretary

Subhashini.J. Vs District Superintendent of Police

Vincent Vs the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam

Vasumathy Vs Sumathy

V.K.Steel House Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors.