SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SABU KURIAKOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VECHOOCHIRA – Respondent
WP(C) 7587/2018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7587 of 2018(W)

------------------------

PETITIONER(S):

-------------

SABU KURIAKOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.UTHUPPAN KURIAKOSE, VADAKKEVELIL KIZHAKKETHIL @ KAVUNKAL HOUSE, ANGADI VILLAGE, ANGADI MURI, RANNI TALUK, MANAGING PARTNER, KAVUNKAL GRANITES, CHEMPANOLI, VECHUCHIRA P O, ATHIKKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VECHOOCHIRA VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-686511

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-686511.

3. SHAJI @ CHACKO MATHEW, PATHALIL HOUSE, MADANTHAMAN P O, ATHIKKAYAM-689711.

4. SABU, PUTHENPARAMBIL, AARATTUMANNU, NARANAMOOZHI P O, ATHIKKAYAM - 689711.

5. PRINCE JOSE, MUTHIRAKULATHU HOUSE, NARANAMOOZHI P O, CHEMBANOLI-689711.

WP(C).No. 7587 of 2018 (W) --------------------------

6. SAJI GEORGE, PUTHENPARAMBIL VANATHRUMURI, NARAMAMOOZHI P O, ATHIKAYAM-689711.

7. SEBASTIAN @ KUTTIYACHAN, MANIMALA HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM - 686682.

8. JOJI, MANIMALA HOUSE, VEVHUCHIRA P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM -686511.

9. SHOBANA JAMES, MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, VECHUCHIRA P O, CHEMBANOLI-686511.

R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7587 of 2018 (W) --------------------------

APPENDIX -----------

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

-----------------------

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/7/2017 IN IA NO.1044/2017 IN OS NO.159/17 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3/11/2017 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

-----------------------

NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE dkr K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.

-------------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No. 7587 of 2018 -------------------------------------------

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Ashok Menon, J.

The petitioner claims to be the Managing Partner of a firm engaged in quarrying activities. He entered into a quarry lease in respect of ten hectares of land in Athikkayam Village in Ranni Taluk. Respondents 3 to 9 are residents in the nearby areas. The petitioner constructed a road through the property, the party respondents disrupted use of the same. The employees of the petitioners have been attacked. The petitioner approached the Munsiff's Court, Ranni and filed O.S.No.159/2017 and obtained an order of temporary injunction as per Ext.P1. Despite the injunction order, the petitioner states that the party respondents continue with their act of trespass and disruption of petitioner's activities and hold out threat to life of himself and his employees. Ext.P2 complaint was filed before the 1st respondent, but no action has been taken so far. The party respondents wield considerable WP(C) 7587/2018 political clout and are threatening to close down the quarry operation of the petitioner, which he has been doing legally, with all requisite permission and sanction. It is claimed that the petitioner has also obtained orders from this Court to carry on with his work in the quarry.

2. It seems that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.159/2017 and there was a counter case against him as O.S.No.164/2017 filed by three persons from the locality. Ext.P1 temporary injunction was obtained by the petitioner restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into his property and causing any obstruction to the construction of the road. In the counter suit, there was an injunction against the petitioner restraining him from closing down the water stream or committing any act of waste in that stream. The civil court has to decide the rights of the parties and also the extent of their rights. In view of the fact that there is already a civil suit p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top