Sunil Philip vs The Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The Petitioner, a construction contractor, who has got a contract for the construction of a school at Cherthala for Bishop Moore Vidhyapith, has approached this Court complaining that he is being obstructed by Respondents 2 to 5 in carrying out the construction. According to the Petitioner, Ext.P1 is the building permit duly issued by the 6th Respondent in his favour for the proposed construction and the construction is to be carried out in terms of Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the agreement executed between the school management and the Petitioner regarding the work. Even though notice was served on Respondents 2 to 5 by special messenger they have not turned up before this Court for resisting the averments and the prayers in this Writ Petition. Sri.Santhosh Mathew, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that had it not been for the exorbitant wages demanded by the party Respondents, the Petitioner would have willingly engaged them in the construction work. Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned Counsel for the 6th Respondent/Panchayat submitted that Ext.P1 building permit is in currency.

All the averments in the Writ Petition stand established by non-traverse. We do not find any justifiable ground on which the Respondents 2 to 5 can insist that they should be engaged by the Petitioner in the construction work and that too on their terMs. The Writ Petition will stand allowed. We direct the first Respondent to provide effective and adequate police protection to the Petitioner''s work for constructing the school building on the basis of Ext.P2 agreement without any obstruction from Respondents 2 to 5 and persons acting under them.