Disposed

M/S Trinity Arcade Pvt. Ltd. v. Assist Commissioner of Police Commissioner'S Office Thrikkakara

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014WP(C)/5712/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection and directions for water pipeline connection. Court noted affidavit from Kerala Water Authority stating obstruction was resolved and no water shortage expected, thus declining to pass specific directions but recording commitments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; respondents noted not to obstruct; police to enquire law and order issues.

M/S Trinity Arcade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assist Commissioner of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 5712 of 2014 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S TRINITY ARCADE PVT LTD., TRINITY HOUSE, OPP.CHANGAMPUZHA PARK, EDAPPALLY PO, COCHIN 682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE SRI.T.S.ABDUL KHADER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. ASSIST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN 682 021.

¶11

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN 682 021.

¶12

3. THE ASST.ENGINEER, W.S.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN 682 021.

¶13

4. MR.ABOOBAKER,

¶14

S/O.MOHAMMED, NARANGATHUMOOLA HOUSE, BEHIND MOSQUE, OFF.PALLI ROAD, CHITTETHUKARA, P.O. CSEZ, KOCHI 682 037.

¶15

5. MR.SIDHIQUE,

¶16

S/O.KHADAR, THADATHIL HOUSE, BEHIND MOSQUE, OFF.PALLI ROAD, CHITTETHUKARA, P.O CSEZ, KOCHI 682 037.

¶17

6. MR.K.P.BASHEER,

¶18

S/O.PAREED, KAVUVARIKKAL HOUSE, SAYID HUSSAIN POOKKOYA THANGAL ROAD, (OLD CHITTETHUKARA ROAD), THAIKKAVU JUNCTION, CHITTETHUKARA, KAKKANAD, P.O CSEZ, KOCHI 682 037.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE R3 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY R4,R5,R6 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN

¶20

SMT.M.H.BINDU

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Kss

¶23

WP(C).No. 5712 of 2014 (L)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 30/4/2013 ISSUED BY THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 9/5/2013.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 9/5/2013 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ROUTE MAP ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION SLIP DATED 16/1/2014.

¶31

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE TECHNICAL SANCTION SLIP DATED 16/1/2014.

¶32

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED 13/2/2014 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 5712 OF 2014

¶41

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2014

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Shaffique, J.

¶44

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following

¶45

reliefs:

¶46

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the first and second respondents to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and their workers without any let or interference from the respondents 4 to 6, supporters or sympathizers for connecting the pipe line to the main line.

¶47

ii. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the first and second respondents to take action on Exhibit P7 representation,

¶48

iii. Hold that the obstructions caused by the respondents 4 to 6 with supporters and sympathisers is arbitrary and illegal.”

¶49

The petitioner company had completed the

¶50

construction work of an apartment and applied for water connection. The Water Authority had given administrative sanction and decided to draw pipe line from Chittethukara Old Road to the petitioner's apartment. The same was objected by party respondents. The apprehension expressed by party

¶51

WP(C) No. 5712 of 2014

¶52

-:2:-

¶53

respondents is that if the water line is drawn to the petitioner's apartment, the pressure of the water to the other residents in the locality will be substantially affected.

¶54

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Kerala Water Authority would submit that they have already drawn pipe line but they are unable to connect the line due to the obstruction by people in the locality. Hence we directed the Executive Engineer, Water Authority to file an affidavit after verifying the apprehensions expressed by party respondents. An affidavit is filed on 14.03.2014 inter alia stating that a 63mm line to a length of 320 meters through Chittethukara Old Road up to the entrance of the petitioner's complex was drawn as the interconnection with the main line was objected by the local public. According to him, the supply line is drawn from one of the main line passing through Chittethukara Old Road and supply to the obstructers is not from the said line. Therefore, according

¶55

to him, there will not be any short supply of water to the obstructers or to the nearby residents. It is further stated that

¶56

WP(C) No. 5712 of 2014

¶57

-:3:-

¶58

63 mm line passes through a private road called Mulackapplilly Road and the residents by the side are not obstructing the drawl of the line. He also refers to the guidelines issued in this regard in which it is stated that sanction and execution of street main extension through consumer contribution, viz the 63 mm line which is called Common Street Main Extension (CSME), will

¶59

become the property of KWA and after 6 months water connection can be given to the public from it.

¶60

Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that their apprehension regarding shortage of water supply is taken care of, and in the light of the said facts they do not intend to cause any obstruction to the connection of line to the petitioner's complex.

¶61

Having regard to this factual situation and the statement by either of the parties, we do not think any direction

¶62

as sought for is required to be passed. However, we take on record the submission made by party respondents that they will

¶63

WP(C) No. 5712 of 2014

¶64

-:4:-

¶65

not obstruct the drawing of line or connecting the line to the petitioner's complex. If there is any law and order problem in this regard, Police shall enquire into the same and do the needful to enable the Water Authority to complete the laying of water line as well as connecting the same to the petitioner's complex.

¶66

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is

¶67

disposed of.

¶68

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶69

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶70

ttb/17/03

M/S Trinity Arcade Pvt. Ltd. v. Assist Commissioner of Police Commissioner'S Office Thrikkakara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Trinity Arcade Pvt. Ltd. v. Assist Commissioner of Police Commissioner'S Office Thrikkakara

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

C.T.Chacko Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-1(1)

M/S Amar Timber Traders Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Hotel & Allied Trades Pvt.Ltd Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I (1) Ernakulam

Chandrika Shaji Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Tomy Vs Sub Inspector of Police