Allowed

C.C.Usman v. the Corporation of Kozhikode Rep by Its

Kerala HC25 Mar 2011WP(C)/7332/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ directions for police protection against unidentified stone-throwers endangering their multi-storeyed building. The Court found the petitioners could not specify aggressors or motives. The writ was allowed in part, ordering police to act on future specific complaints without intervening in unspecified disputes.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents 2 and 3 to take action on future specific complaints regarding the violent conduct alleged by petitioners.

C.C.Usman Vs the Corporation of Kozhikode Rep by Its — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 7332 of 2011(N) --------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. C.C.USMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, CHALILCHALAKANDI HOUSE, IRUMBUZHI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHANIL USMAN MOHAMED, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. C.C.USMAN, CHALILCHALAKANDI HOUSE, IRUMBUZHI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU

¶11

SMT.C.S.RAJANI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶15

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE NORTH, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶16

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAYIL POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPN R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C)NO.7332/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2853/2004 OF S.R.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.

¶24

P2 COPY OF THE RENEWED BUILDING PERMIT DATED 14/12/2009.

¶25

P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES.

¶26

P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR CUTTING THE ROAD.

¶27

P5 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2772/2007

¶28

P6 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1244/2007.

¶29

P6(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1245/2007.

¶30

P6(B) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2996/06.

¶31

P7 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD 30/11/2009.

¶32

P8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/02/2011.

¶33

P8(A) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.

¶34

P9 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25/02/2011.

¶35

P9(A) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶41

WPC No.7332 of 2011

¶42

Dated this the 25^th March, 2011

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Basant, J.

¶45

The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 2 and 3 to afford protection to the petitioners against illegal conduct of nonspecified persons.

¶46

According to the petitioners, they have undertaken construction of a multi storeyed building within the jurisdiction of respondents 2 and 3. One building is completed and the construction of the other building is in progress. It is the grievance of the petitioners that nonspecified and unidentified persons are indulging in the wanton violent conduct of throwing stones at the building. This considerably imperils the life and person of the petitioners, the persons employed by the petitioners as also the occupants of the buildings already constructed. According to the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 police officials are guilty of inaction. The petitioners have

¶47

wpc No.7332/2011 2

¶48

arrayed the Corporation of Calicut also as the first respondent. No relief is claimed against them. But, it is said that they have been impleaded to show that the construction activity has been undertaken validly in accordance with law.

¶49

Who are the persons, who are allegedly indulging in violent actionable conduct and what is the purpose for which they are indulging in such conduct? Significantly, the petitioners are unable to give any explanation for this. According to the petitioners, to their knowledge, no specified persons have any motive against them and they are not able to specify the names of those who are indulging in such contumacious and culpable conduct. They are the victims. Why the miscreants are resorting to such conduct, the petitioners are unable to explain, it is submitted.

¶50

There is controversy between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 as to whether earlier complaints have been lodged or not.

¶51

The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 2 and 3 submits that no earlier complaints raising such allegations as are raised in this petition were received. However, the learned

¶52

wpc No.7332/2011 3

¶53

Government Pleader undertakes on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that if there be any such culpable and contumacious conduct on the part of any person hereafter the petitioners can lodge complaints before respondents 2 and 3 whereupon they shall take necessary action to afford protection to the petitioners.

¶54

We record the said submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition now.

¶55

This writ petition is in these circumstances allowed in part accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We may, in the circumstances of this case, clarify that this order shall not clothe the police with any power to intervene in other disputes, if any, which the petitioners may have with others. Stone throwing by unspecified miscreants indulging in wanton conduct, we note, is the only grievance before us.

¶56

R.BASANT JUDGE

¶57

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶58

css/

C.C.Usman v. the Corporation of Kozhikode Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.C.Usman v. the Corporation of Kozhikode Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabna Afsal and Another Vs the Circle Inspector of Police,Perumbavo

Mohanan Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Anilkumar P.K. Vs Circle Inspector of Police and Others

P.Sasi Vs Circle Inspector of Police, Parassala &

Unus Kunju Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Anilkumar Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police