JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she is constructing a commercial building for herself in a property on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit issued by the Kollam Corporation, but that respondents 3 to 6 are obstructing the same for no reasonable cause, but merely alleging such construction may cause prejudice to their residential house and property.

2. The petitioner says that the afore apprehension of the party respondents is completely unfounded and that, in any event, his client is willing to construct a retaining wall on their boundary, so that any such fear can be fully allayed. She says that, however, in spite of this offer being made the resistance from respondents 3 to 6 continued, thus constraining her to prefer Ext. P2 seeking protection to herself and to her employees; but that no action was taken thereon, thus constraining her to approach this court through this writ petition.

3. Sri.Millu Dandapani – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, supplemented the afore submissions of his clients, saying that the party respondents had earlier made certain complaints before the Corporation, leading to a Stop Memo being issued by the said Authority, against which his client approached its Technical Committee, which then made Ext.P5 recommendations, based on which the said Stop Memo was withdrawn by the Corporation. He added that even though the party respondents challenged this before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which was also dismissed. He contented that, therefore, the party respondents cannot obstruct his client from making the construction; but that they are still continuing to do so, which has forced his client to seek urgent orders from this Court.

4. Sri. K.M.Firoz – learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that his clients are now residing in a house which is more than 70 years old and that the construction being carried by the petitioner will certainly cause deleterious consequences to it. He submitted that it is in such circumstances, that they had been constrained to approach the competent Authorities, but conceded that he is aware whether the Stop Memo earlier issued by the Kollam Corporation has been withdrawn.

5. Sri. M.K.Chandramohandas – learned standing counsel for the Kollam Corporation, affirmed that the Stop Memo issued by his client earlier has been now withdrawn, pursuant to the recommendations of the Technical Committee, which action has been approved by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions; and that there is presently no inhibition to the petitioner in carrying on the construction as per law.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without doubt that, as of now, the petitioner faces no legal interdiction in carrying on with her construction.

Therefore, if respondents 3 to 6 are any complaint against the same, their remedy is to approach the competent Authority, but cannot take law into their hands or cause any obstruction, as has been alleged by the petitioner. 7. In the afore circumstances, leaving respondents

3 to 6 full liberty to invoke all remedies as may be available to them in law, I dispose of this writ petition in the following manner.

8. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the

2nd respondent is directed to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and her employees, while they make the construction strictly in terms of a Valid Building Permit, without any let or interference from any person, including respondents 3 to 6 or their men or associates.

Needless to say, if the party respondents have any further grievance against the construction, they are at liberty to approach the competent Authority, including the Corporation; and in such event, the said Authority will take necessary action as per law.

At this time, K.M. Firoz intervened to say that the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions is under challenge before this Court and prayed that it may be clarified that the afo