Court ruled no police protection was necessary as no obstruction was proven, emphasizing compliance with valid building permits.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a direction for the grant of police protection for the construction of a residential house pursuant to Exhibit-P1 building permit.

2. Petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent started obstructing the construction of the building on petitioner's property without any basis and that his intention is to collect money from persons constructing buildings, and hence, in the absence of police protection, petitioner would be put to prejudice.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent stating that he has no intention to obstruct and has never obstructed the construction of the building on the petitioner's property and that he has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court by filing this writ petition. It is, however, pointed out that the petitioner attempted to construct a compound wall in violation of a stop memo issued by the Corporation. It is also pointed out that the 4^th respondent had identi sheds constructed for accommodating labourers from other States, without providing the necessary sanitation facilities and the attempt of the petitioner is only to cover up the illegalities being committed by him. It was also pointed out that the building permit issued to the petitioner had expired.

4. I have heard Sri. P. Mohandas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Arun Antony, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent, Sri. Sarangadharan, the learned counsel fro the 4^th respondent as well as Smt., Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. When the petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent is obstructing the construction of the building on his property, the said respondent asserts that he has never objected to the construction of any building. Though the 4th respondent has raised serious objections against him being arrayed as a respondent and dragging him to this Court without any basis, considering that 4^th respondent has no intention to obstruct any construction, I am of the view that no specific direction granting police protection is necessary in the circumstances of the case. The submission on behalf of the 4^th respondent that he has never obstructed and will never obstruct the construction of the building is recorded.

Accordingly, this writ petition is closed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Police Officer, if in case any obstruction is raised by the 4th respondent. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall construct the building or the compound wall only if he has a valid permit in his possession.

Sd/-