Allowed

K. Praseeda Kumari v. State Police Chief

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016WP(C)/2461/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the fourth respondent, Station House Officer, must provide necessary police protection to ensure no obstruction is caused to the petitioner's construction of a compound wall based on an issued building permit, given that some respondents did not appear.

What did the court decide?

The fourth respondent shall provide necessary protection and ensure that no obstruction is caused.

K. Praseeda Kumari Vs State Police Chief — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C). No.2461 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K. PRASEEDA KUMARI, W/O.HARIKUMAR, PRATHIBHA NILAYAM, NEERAVIL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 014.

¶11

2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶13

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, ANCHALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 603.

¶14

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM.PIN - 691 601.

¶15

6. THE THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRIKKADAVOOR, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM - 691 601, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

7. SRI.MOHANA BABU, KOCHUVARAMBEL, NEERAVIL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.

¶17

8. SRI.A.AMAN, NAVAS MANZIL, THRIKKADAVOOR, KUREEPPUZHA P.O KOLLAM. PIN - 691 604

¶18

WP(C). No.2461 of 2016 (G)

¶19

:2:

¶20

9. SRI.B.RAJENDRAN, KOLLANTTAYYATHU, NEERAVIL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM. PIN - 691 601.

¶21

10. SRI.MOHANA CHANDRAN PILLAI, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI VADAKKATHIL, NEERAVIL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM. PIN - 691 601.

¶22

11. SRI.HARISANKAR, KALLUVETTAMKUZHI VADAKKATHIL, NEERAVIL PERINAD P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 601.

¶23

R1 TO R5 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR R10 & R11 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 2461 of 2016 (G)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.P-1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015 - 16 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶29

EXT.P-2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015 - 16 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶30

EXT.P-3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND SKETCH OF THE BUILDING AND COMPOUND WALL ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXT.P-4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL

¶33

KRJ

¶34

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶35

W.P(C). No. 2461 of 2016

¶36

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Shaffique, J

¶39

This writ petition has been filed seeking police protection alleging that respondents 7 to 11 are obstructing the construction of a compound wall, for which the petitioner had obtained Exhibit P3 building permit.

¶40

Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 10 and 11 stating that they have no objection in the petitioner the constructing compound wall, provided the construction is made strictly in accordance with building permit and plan annexed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had no intention to make deviation from Exhibit P3 or plan annexed therein.

¶42

Though notice was served on respondents 7 to 9 there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶43

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that if there is any obstruction from any of the party respondents regarding construction of compound wall on

¶44

¶45

W.P(C).2461/16

¶46

the basis of Exhibit P3 building permit and the plan annexed, the fourth respondent shall provide necessary protection and ensure that no obstruction is caused.

¶47

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,

¶50

sou.5/2.

K. Praseeda Kumari v. State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Praseeda Kumari v. State Police Chief

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

Geetha Vs M.C.John

Sreedharan Pillai Vs Saraswathi Amma

Thayyil Kumaran Vs State of Kerala and Others

N.B.Mani Vs the Fisheries Deputy Registrar and Others

Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Maniyamma Vs the Sub Inspector of Police