Disposed

Rajesh, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC16 Aug 2019WP(C)/6428/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of three writ petitions concerning construction apprehensions on a Wakf property. It refused to interfere with the RDO's order restricting construction due to lack of permits but directed the Police to ensure communal harmony and prevent violence.

What did the court decide?

Orders disposed; Police directed to ensure no disturbance and safeguard the area; RDO's restraining direction to be implemented.

Rajesh, Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.6428 OF 2019(C)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 RAJESH, S/O. RGHAVAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, KOMALLOOR P.O., ALLEPPEY 690 505.

¶10

2 RAMANI,ANANDA BHAVAN, KOMALLOOR P.O., ALLEPPEY 695 505.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ SMT.E.S.SONI SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKAD, MAVELIKARA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶15

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA.

¶16

3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR.

¶17

4 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶18

5 CHUNAKKARA NORTH JAMA-AT COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHAMSUDHEEN RAWATHAR, KUNTHALETHUPUTHAN VEEDU, CHUNKKARA NORTH - 690107

¶19

6 CHARUMOODU TOWN JUMA MASJID PARIPALANA COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHARUMOODU JUMA MASJID CHARUMOOD 690505

¶20

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..2..

¶21

7 NAVAS, KAMARAIN, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.690101

¶22

8 SALEEM @ THANGALKUNJU, KOIKKAL AYYATHU, KOMALLOOR, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA 690101

¶23

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶24

SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).11572/2019(V), WP(C).6467/2019(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..3..

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶32

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶33

WP(C).No.6467 OF 2019(G)

¶34

PETITIONER/S:

¶35

RAJESH, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, KOMALLOOR - P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 505.

¶36

BY ADVS. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ SMT.E.S.SONI SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR

¶37

RESPONDENT/S:

¶38

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKADU, MAVLIKARA, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 690 101.

¶39

2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 688 001.

¶40

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 688 001.

¶41

4 SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, CHENGANNUR - 689 121

¶42

5 TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKKARA - 690 101.

¶43

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..4..

¶44

6 CHUNAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATHH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHUNAKKARA PANCHAYAHTH OFFICE, CHUNAKKARA - 690 107.

¶45

7 CHUNAKKARA NORTH JAMA-AT COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHAMSUDEEN RAWATHAR, KUNTHALETHUPUTHAN VEEDU,

¶46

CHUNAKKARA NORTH - 690 107.

¶47

8 CHARUMOODU TOWN JUMA MASJID PARIPALANA COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHARUMOODU JUMA MASJID, CHARUMOOD - 690 505.

¶48

R1-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).11572/2019(V), WP(C).6428/2019(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..5..

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶52

PRESENT

¶53

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶54

¶55

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶56

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶57

WP(C).No.11572 OF 2019(V)

¶58

PETITIONER/S:

¶59

CHUNAKKARA VADAKKU NOORUL ISLAM JAMA ATH CHUNAKKARA, KOMALLOOR (P.O), MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, BINU USMAN.

¶60

BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO

¶61

RESPONDENT/S:

¶62

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

¶63

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 001

¶64

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 011

¶65

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 689 121

¶66

5 THE TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 101

¶67

6 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 101

¶68

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..6..

¶69

7 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION, KURATHIKAD, CHUNAKKARA (P.O), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 534

¶70

8 SIVAN PILLAI, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PUTHUR KIZHAKKATHIL, KOMALLOOR MURI, KOMALLOOR (P.O), CHUNAKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 505

¶71

9 REMANI RAGHAVAN, W/O. RAGHAVAN, ANANDA BHAVANAM, KOMALOOR (P.O), CHUNAKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 505

¶72

10 RAJESH RAGHAVAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, ANANDA BHAVANAM, KOMALOOR (P.O), CHUNAKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 505

¶73

11 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM AT CHANGANACHERRY, PIN 686 101

¶74

R1-6 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY R8-10 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ R8-10 BY ADV. SMT.E.S.SONI R8-10 BY ADV. SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SR.GP.

¶75

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).6428/2019(C), WP(C).6467/2019(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶76

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..7..

¶77

JUDGMENT

¶78

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ]

¶79

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶80

The writ petitions are all with respect

¶81

to the construction attempted in a property,

¶82

which is said to be belonging to a Wakf.

¶83

The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 6428

¶84

and 6467 of 2019 apprehend that there would be a construction carried out of a Mosque in the said area, which would disturb the communal harmony of the area. The petitioner also refer to Ext.P4 produced in W.P.(C) No.6467 of 2019, wherein the Minutes of the meeting of the R.D.O, specifically indicate that there is no permit obtained by the Wakf as of now. The R.D.O hence has restrained

¶85

the construction of any Mosque, for the present.

¶86

It has been specifically stated in

¶87

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..8..

¶88

the counter affidavit of the State filed in

¶89

W.P.(C) No.6467/2019, in accordance with the decision of the R.D.O, the Mavelikkara Tahsildar had demolished the erection on the property; a temporary shed, on 05.03.2019 with police protection. Admittedly there is no permit obtained to put up a temporary shed in the property or to carry on a Madrassa in the shed. There is said to be an application for building permit pending before the local authority. It is also

¶90

stated that the application is for a

¶91

building for the purpose of establishing an Islamic Cultural Centre-cum-reading room. The residents in the other writ petitions apprehend that it is a Mosque which is to be

¶92

constructed there. For the purpose of establishing a religious institution

¶93

necessarily a permit has to be first

¶94

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..9..

¶95

obtained from the District Collector as per the Building Rules. We would not make any observations on the pending application, which has to be considered in accordance with the statutory rules.

¶96

W.P.(C) No.11572/2019 produce the

¶97

minutes of the RDO as Ext.P2 and challenge

¶98

the same. The ground on which it is challenged is violation of principles of

¶99

natural justice. The specific contention raised is that the President of the Jama-ath was proceeding to Trivandrum. It is also averred that they were not invited to the meeting. In the next sentence (paragraph 8) it is also stated that they contacted the RDO on 27.02.2019 and expressed their inability to attend the meeting and sought for three days. The quite contradictory

¶100

stance taken in the writ petition

¶101

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..10..

¶102

probabilises the statement of the RDO in Ext.P2 that those who attended on behalf of the Mosque Committee refused to sign the

¶103

minutes. We hence refuse to interfere with Ext.P2 order. As we noticed, the demolition of the shed in the property, which had no permit cannot be faulted. The other

¶104

decisions taken are only to maintain peace in the locality. There is also no building permit obtained as of now.

¶105

The learned Counsel for the

¶106

petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.6428 and 6467 of

¶107

2019 also submit that their life is at

¶108

threat, since they have raised the instant objections. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is a police picket in the locality, which again makes it obvious that there is apprehension of communal

¶109

disturbance in the area.

¶110

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..11..

¶111

The writ petitions would stand disposed

¶112

of, making it clear that the Police shall ensure that there is no disturbance

¶113

occasioned to the peaceful life in the locality and that communal harmony existing in the area is not disrupted for any reason. It is also made clear that the direction by R.D.O; for the present, shall be implemented in its true spirit and full tenor. The Police shall safeguard the area so that no violence is perpetrated by either sides and no harm is caused to the residents of the

¶114

locality. Parties to suffer their respective costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SB/16/08/2019

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..12..

¶123

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6428/2019

¶124

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶125

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMPLIANT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 21.1.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 21.1.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE SDM DATED 27.2.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF RDO 27.2.2019.

¶126

RESPONDENTS EXTS:

¶127

EXT.R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES BOOK INDICATING THE ELECTION OF THE NEW OFFICE BEARERS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019 EXT.R5(B) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CHILDREN BEING INSTRUCTED IN THE OPEN GROUND.

¶128

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..13..

¶129

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6467/2019

¶130

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶131

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE SDM. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF RDO. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE HOME SECRETARY. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶132

EXHIBIT R7(a)

¶133

TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES BOOK INDICATING THE ELECTION OF THE NEW OFFICE BEARERS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 201-2019.

¶134

EXHIBIT R7(b)

¶135

TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.2.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE RDO CHENGANNUR BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

¶136

[ WP(C).6428/2019, WP(C).11572/2019, WP(C).6467/2019 ] ..14..

¶137

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11572/2019

¶138

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶139

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GIFT DEED NO. 1630/2015 DATED 16-09-2015 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE CHERIYANAD.

¶140

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27-02-2019

¶141

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27-022019

¶142

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL BEFORE THE CHUNAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶143

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶144

// TRUE COPY //

¶145

P.A TO JUDGE

Rajesh, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh, v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Mini Antony Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Abhinav Mohan.B.M Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Mission of the South Kerala Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh, Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chunakkara Vadakku Noorul Islam Jama Ath Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan.a Vs the District Police Chief