M.A SAJITH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18.10.2016, the petitioner claims to have purchased through Ext.P14 sale deed a functioning plywood factory said to have been established by the original owner way back in 1997. Exts.P1 to P6 are the licences issued by various statutory authorities, such as Grama Panchayath, Pollution Control Board.

(2.) On the premise that the factory building is dilapidated, the petitioner proposed to renovate it. The third respondent then objected. In fact, acting on the third respondent's complaint, the respondent Grama Panchayath, too, issued Ext.P10 stop-memo. But later, having been satisfied with the petitioner's Ext.P11 reply, the Grama Panchayath, through Ext.P12, withdrew the stop-memo. Despite this, the third respondent, alleges the petitioner, continued to obstruct. So, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition, after his failing to get the police protection.

(3.) Sri M.A. Abdul Hakhim, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner purchased the factory in a functional condition and that he had all the valid licences transferred to him. He has also drawn our attention to the certificate issued by the Excise Department to hammer home his contention that the petitioner and, earlier, his predecessor have been paying electricity charges regularly and that the factory has been functioning all along. He has also drawn our attention to Ext.P8 building plan to stress that the petitioner has no intention to erect any new structure, except renovating the existing one covering 2140 square metres.