Prathapan vs State of Kerala and Others

Joseph, J.

Appendix

Petitioner''s Exhibits:

Ext.P1

Copy of The Representation Dated 2.4.12 Submitted by The

Petitioner Before R5 With Copy of R3

Ext.P2

True Copy of The Receipt Dated 3.4.2012 Issued TO R5

Ext.P3

Copy of The Postal Receipt Dated 3.4.12.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:

"i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 5 to afford sufficient police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, so as to secure the ends of justice.

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 9th respondent not to form any road to the property of the 8th respondent through the property of the petitioner without the property of the petitioner being acquired or getting it surrendered to the 9th respondent by the petitioner, so as to secure ends of justice."

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is a permanent resident at Mundamveli within the limits of the 9th respondent Corporation. He is in ownership and possession of 46 cents of landed property along with another 10 cents. The 6th respondent herein isa Councilor of 9th respondent Corporation. The 7th respondent is her husband. The 8th respondent is a contractor. It is submitted that the 8th respondent with the political support of 6th and 7th respondents is about to form a road to his property. The owners of the adjacent property have not surrendered any property to form the road to the property of the 8th respondent. Respondents 6 to 8 have formed a road to a certain extent leading to the property of the 9th respondent by encroaching over the property of others by muscle power. The allegation in the writ petition is that respondents 6 to 8 and some persons who are actually the hired goondas of the 8th respondent is threatening the petitioner that if the he did not allow the formation of the road through his property to the property of the 8th respondent, the petitioner will have to face dire consequences. The petitioner has filed Ext.P1 representation and it is before us.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, party respondents and the learned Government Pleader. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 7 and 8 (actually respondents 6 and 7) in which it is inter alia stated as follows:

The averment in para-6 of the writ petition that the life of the petitioner is in iminent danger at the hands of respondents 6 to 8 and their hired goondas is absolutely false. In fact the petitioner has no cause of action and the writ petition is filed without any bonafides and merits. There is suppression of material facts and the only intention is to cause mental harassment to the deponent.These respondents have nothing to do with the construction of the road and there is no personal interest involved. Falsity of the case is further evident from the document produced as Ext.P1 wherein the petitioner has no case that on 13.4.2012 there was an attempt on the part of respondents 6 to 8 to form a road by encroaching upon his property. The residence of the petitioner is at a further distance of 85 meters from the subject metaled road. Of course, the work presently carried out is as per the project approved by the 9th respondent Corporation and the work has already been completed.

The learned Government Pleader also submits that the apprehension that there will be encroachment is without any basis. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents would submit that there is no threat as against the petitioner and the road is already formed.

We record the above submissions and close the writ petition.