Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.GOPALAN versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.GOPALAN v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER - WP(C) No. 12876 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 10304 (14 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12876 of 2007(G)

1. T.GOPALAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.PAKKEERAN,

3. NANDANAM, S/O.T.KUTTIYAN,

4. NARAYANAN,

5. SREEDHARAN,

6. SUSHEELA,

7. JANAKI,

8. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

Dated :14/06/2007

O R D E R

P.R. RAMAN & K. HEMA, JJ.

W.P.(C).No.12876 of 2007 Dated this the 14th day of June, 2007.

JUDGMENT

Raman, J.

Petitioner seeks for appropriate writ order or direction to be issued to the first respondent to afford adequate and sufficient protection to his life and also for digging a bore well in 2.67 cents in R.S.229/1A of Bedadka Village in Kasaragod District.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the paucity of surface water in and around the locality, he applied the Ground Water Authority for permission to dig a bore well which was granted as per Ext.P2 order dated 14.2.2007. According to petitioner, even before attempting to dig the bore well, permission of the nearby property owners was obtained. But, despite the same, when he attempted to dig the well, respondents 3 to 7 and their men caused physical obstruction preventing him from doing so. Complaint made before the first respondent also did not yield any result. Hence he has filed this writ petition.

3. Notice was issued and respondents entered appearance through counsel. Heard both sides.

4. When the petitioner has obtained valid permit, as evidenced by Ext.P2, for digging the bore well, if at all anybody has any apprehension that [WP(C) No.12876/07] 2 the nearby public will be seriously affected by the same, they can only raise their grievance before the concerned authorities and cannot cause any physical obstruction. It is submitted by 5th respondent that, as against Ext.P2 order, statutory appeal has been preferred before the government. It is further submitted that, as of now, no interim stay has been granted. When the petitioner has obtained a licence and so long as the same is in force, he is entitled to dig the bore well strictly in accordance with the licence conditions. In case, there is any physical obstruction as alleged, the first respondent shall give necessary protection to remove such obstruction. However, it is clarified that in case any stay order is obtained against Ext.P2 order or any final order is passed thereon cancelling Ext.P2, the parties shall abide by such order. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.