PRASANNAN NAIR Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HARIPPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent No.1 against illegal obstructions raised by respondents 2 and 3 to the very legal and lawful activity undertaken by him of raising an interim crop of fish in his paddy land. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled in law to undertake the activity of fish farming in the paddy land belonging to him as an intermediate crop. Respondents 2 and 3 have no right to raise objections against such fish farming in the property of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 are causing illegal obstructions. THE police are guilty of inaction though complaints were made to the police. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming police protection.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. We in these circumstances wanted the learned Government Pleader to take detailed instructions and make submissions.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader undertakes that, if no further construction of the bund is undertaken by the petitioner, the police shall afford necessary protection to him. This is without prejudice to the power, right and duty of the concerned official to take action, if any, necessary against the objectionable construction of bund, if any, has already taken place. Such action will have to be taken strictly in accordance with law giving the petitioner all rights to be heard and to substantiate his contentions. THE leaned Government Pleader submits that in these circumstances there is no necessity to issue any further direction to the police. THE petitioner shall be given adequate and sufficient protection to carry on his activity of intermediate fish farming in his property, provided he does not undertake any further construction of the bund.