K. Raghavan Nair v. State Of Kerala

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners, office-bearers of Sreeswaprakasha Trust (trust created by Brahmasree Swaprakashanantha Bharathi), sought permission to construct a compound wall around trust property and to put up a Meditation Hall and Ashram. Ext.P5 is the building permit; Ext.P6 is an order of the Tahasildar which was challenged and, by Ext.P12 judgment, this Court quashed that order while noting that quashing would not prevent authorities from taking action in pursuance of Annexure-2 in accordance with law. The petitioners alleged ongoing obstruction and harassment by respondents in constructing the compound wall and alleged that respondents 5 and 6 had dumped vehicles and articles on the trust property. The petitioners sought writs directing respondents to desist from obstruction and to remove seized vehicles/articles, and directions for adequate police protection.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether respondents should be directed to desist from obstructing, harassing or preventing the petitioners and their workers from constructing the compound wall around the Ext.P2 property pursuant to Ext.P5 permit and remove any seized vehicles/articles from the trust property.
2. Whether respondents should be directed to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners, other members of the trust and their workers in constructing the compound wall around Ext.P2 property pursuant to Ext.P5 permit.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The petitioners are entitled to construct the compound wall pursuant to Ext.P5 building permit; the trust owns the property by gift deed.
• Ext.P6 (Tahasildar's order) was quashed by this Court by Ext.P12 judgment, but despite that quashing there is ongoing obstruction and harassment preventing construction.
• Respondents 5 and 6 have dumped seized vehicles and other articles on the trust property and/or have vehicles in custody on the property.

Respondents' (Government Pleader) Submissions

• There is no harassment and no crime has been registered against the petitioners.
• No vehicles have been dumped and no vehicles are parked on the petitioners' property.
• If vehicles are found parked on the petitioners' property despite these assurances, the petitioners may approach the 3rd respondent, who will investigate and remove any vehicles belonging to respondents if they are found inside the petitioners' property.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. The Court recorded the Government Pleader's assurances that there was no harassment, no crime registered, and no vehicles dumped or parked on the petitioners' property, and that the 3rd respondent would investigate and remove any respondent-owned vehicles found on the property. On that basis, and having noted the factual and procedural history including Ext.P12, the Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the assurances and statements recorded.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The writ petition was disposed of by the Court as recorded: the Court accepted the respondents' assurances and directed that if vehicles are found on the petitioners' property the petitioners may approach the 3rd respondent who will look into the matter and remove respondent-owned vehicles if found. The direct effect is that the petition is disposed; the opinion does not set out broader precedent or new legal principles.