Kerala High Court
Manoj Kumar Prabhu vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.23200 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER:
MANOJ KUMAR PRABHU
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. VISWANATHA PRABHU, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VEEYEM DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.NO.2/646, GODOWN ROAD,
CHERANELLOOR, KOCHI-683 544.
BY ADV. SMT.O.H.NAZEEBA
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 032.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 544.
3 SHIFAS T.S.
S/O. SAYED MOHAMMED, 2/229, THARAKKANDATHIL HOUSE,
CHERANELLOOR P.O., CHERANELLOOR, PIN-683544.
(CORRECTED)
SHIFAS T.S., S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, HOUSE NO.2/229,
THARAKANDATHIL HOUSE, V.M.SEETHI ROAD,
CHERANALLOOR P.O., PIN - 683 544.
4 ZIRAJ V.A.
S/O. ABDUL KALAM, 2/224, VALIYAVEEDU HOUSE,
CHERANELLOOR, PIN-683 544.
(CORRECTED)
ZIRAJ V.A., S/O.ABDULKALAAM, HOUSE NO.8/513 (22/244),
VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR, PIN - 683 544.
5 JAMSHAD
S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, 2/248, VALIYAVEEDU,
CHERANELLOOR, PIN-683 544.
(CORRECTED)
WP(C).No.23200 OF 2020 2
JAMSHAD, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, 8/517(2), VALIYAVEEDU
HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR, PIN - 683 544
6 ABDUL KALAM
S/O. ALI PILLAI, 2/224, VALIYAVEEDU,
CHERANELLOOR, PIN-683 544.
(CORRECTED)
ABDULKALAM, S/O.ALIPILLAI, HOUSE 8/513(2/244),
VALIYAVEEDU HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR, PIN - 683 544.
(ADDRESS OF R3 TO R6 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED
18.12.2020 IN I.A.2/2020 IN WP(C)NO.23200/2020.)
7 PRASANNAN T.K.
THERATHU VEEDU, T.O.G.ROAD,
KALAMASSERY, PIN-683 104.
8 ADDL.R8.
THE CHERANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERANELLOOR,
SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., CHERANELLOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 027.
(ADDITIONAL R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
18/12/2020 IN I.A.1/2020 IN WP(C)23200/2020)
R3-4, R6 BY ADVS. SRI.V.SRI NATH
MS.JENCY SUSAN JOSE
SHRI.JERRY GEEVARGHESE JOSE
R8 BY ADV. T.K.AJITHKUMAR, SC
SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.23200 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the inaction of the police in granting effective
protection to the petitioner, his employees and workers to enable them to
carry out construction activities in a property owned by the petitioner, this
writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner states that he is the Managing Director of
Veeyeem Distributors Private Limited, a company engaged in the
manufacture and sale of steel products. He claims that he is the absolute
owner of an item of property situated in Sy. No.62 of Cheranelloor Village.
The local authority has granted him a permit to carry out the construction of
a boundary wall. When he started construction, the party respondents have
objected stating that the petitioner was attempting to convert paddy land. A
stop memo was issued by the Panchayath which was challenged by the
petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.8933/2020 before this Court. In the course of
hearing, it was brought out that the property owned by the petitioner is
Purayidam. The Panchayat withdrew the stop memo and recording the same,
the writ petition was closed. In spite of the above, when the party
respondents continued with the objectionable activities and threatened the
petitioner and his employees, he approached the police and lodged Ext.P3
complaint. The petitioner states that his complaint was ignored by the
police. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court
seeking direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to afford adequate
protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his workmen to carry
out activities in the property in Survey No.62 of Cheranelloor Panchayat on
the strength of the permit issued by the panchayath without any fear and
danger from respondent Nos.3 to 7.
3. Sri. T.K. Ajith Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for
the Panchayat, submitted that a stop memo was earlier issued, but the same
was later withdrawn when it was realized that the activities committed by the
petitioner did not fall foul of the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy land
and Wetland Act, 2008. It is submitted that when it was noticed that
transportation of sand and granites using heavy loads were causing damage
to the Panchayat roads, the committee has resolved to restrict the use of
such vehicles. This restriction would be applicable to the petitioner as well.
4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader, who has
supported the submissions of the learned standing counsel appearing for the
Panchayat.
5. Sri. Sreenath, the learned counsel appearing for the party
respondents, submitted that all they did was raise objections when they felt
that the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act was
being violated. It is further submitted that the petitioner used to transport
heavy loads and now in view of the decision taken by the Panchayat, the
party respondents have no further grievance.
6. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner seeking to implead the
local authority, it is stated that the petitioner has his own way directly to the
highway from his property and that he does not require to use the panchayat
road for transportation.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced. Initially, the
grievance of the party respondents was that the petitioner was violating the
provisions of the Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act. It has now
come out that the property of the petitioner is a Purayidom. They have
obtained a valid permit from the Panchayat for the purpose of construction
of a boundary wall. As long as the activities carried out by the petitioner in
his property is legitimate and legal, the party respondents will not be
justified in causing any obstruction. The petitioner shall act strictly in terms
of the permit issued to him by the Panchayat and shall not carry out any acts
for which permission has not been granted. In spite of that, if any
obstruction is caused by the party respondents, the petitioner may approach
the 2nd respondent and lodge a complaint. The 2nd respondent shall
consider his grievance and if it is found that the same is genuine, necessary
protection shall be afforded.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED
1.10.2020 PASSED BY THE COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
26.8.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT SENT
TYPE WRITTEN COMPLAINT THROUGH E-MAIL ID
OF CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION DATED
8.9.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT
DATED 26.9.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
OF EXT.P5 DATED 28.9.2020.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
