Kerala High Court
T.Mohankumar vs Vijayakumar on 13 September, 2012
Author: K.M. Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 14595 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
T.MOHANKUMAR,
PROPRIETOR, SRI BALAJI LODGE, EAST FORT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
SMT.E.S.SONI
RESPONDENTS:
-----------
1. VIJAYAKUMAR
PROPRIETOR, VENKITESWARA HANDLOOM SOCIETY,
EAST FORT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695023.
2. THE CITY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SMT.A.AFREEZA KHAN
R2 BY ADV.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON MANGUZHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-09-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 16828/2012, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
WP(C).No. 14595 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
APPENDIX
--------
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
----------------------
EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
---------------------
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NOS.14595/12 Y & 16828/2012 C
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th September, 2012
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
The Writ Petitions being connected, we dispose of the same by this common Judgment.
W.P.(C).No.16828/12 is filed seeking the following relief:
"Direct respondents 2 to 5 to take immediate action on Exts.P3 and P4 complaints and direct them to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner and his staff and also for the smooth functioning of Sri Balaji Lodge functioning in TC No.37/931/(2) by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other order or direction."
In W.P.(C).No.14595/12 filed by the very same petitioner, the reliefs sought are as follows:
"a) Set aside Ext.P8 order by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or WP(C).NOS.14595/12Y & 16828/12C 2 direction.
b) Direct the second respondent Corporation to take fresh steps to demolish the illegal roof put up by the first respondent in the common pathway and in the open space blocking the ventilation and light to the building of the petitioner and blocking its view from the public road by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction."
2. W.P.(C).No.16828/12:
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
First respondent who is none other than the brother of the petitioner, with his staff in his shop are creating trouble for the smooth functioning of the lodge of the petitioner by physically obstructing the ingress and egress of the customers to the lodge and also by preventing the customers of the petitioner by threatening them. Despite complaint, there is inaction. According to petitioner, there is a common pathway which starts from the southern main road and ends in plot No.1 which is allotted to him WP(C).NOS.14595/12Y & 16828/12C 3 as per the partition between the petitioner and the first respondent. This is besides plot No.4. First respondent has been given equal right to use the pathway. The pathway ends at the lodge of the petitioner.
3. W.P.(C).No.14595/2012
The substance of the complaint is directed against Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is an order passed by the Tribunal for local self Government Institutions. There is a further direction sought to take fresh steps to demolish the illegal roof put up by the first respondent in the common pathway and in the open space blocking the ventilation and light to the building of the petitioner and blocking its view from the public road.
4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties including the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation.
5. As far as W.P.(C).No.16828/12 is concerned, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first WP(C).NOS.14595/12Y & 16828/12C 4 respondent will not obstruct the petitioner or the members of the petitioner's staff and the customers going to the petitioner's lodge through the common pathway mentioned in the partition deed. We record the said submission. We also record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not block the staff and customers of the first respondent going to his shop, using the common pathway and dispose of the said Writ Petition.
6. As far as W.P.(C).No.14595/12 is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the second respondent Corporation would submit that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 will be taken and completed in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today, in compliance with Ext.P8 order. We record the said submission and dispose of the said Writ Petition also.
7. In the event of the first respondent going against the assurance held out in this Court and the petitioner complaining about the same before the fourth respondent in W.P.(C).
No.16828/12, the fourth respondent Sub Inspector of Police will WP(C).NOS.14595/12Y & 16828/12C 5 look into it and if he finds that the complaint is genuine, he will afford protection to the petitioner as against the first respondent as against any such obstruction.
Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= K. HARILAL, JUDGE kbk.
//True copy//