K.K.BUILDERS Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law and facts arise in the above writ petitions and therefore, we think, it is appropriate to hear and dispose of both the writ petitions jointly. The parties and proceedings are referred to as given in WP(C) No.3654/2019, except where it is separately mentioned in the given context.

(2.) The writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and the persons working under the petitioner from the illegal acts of the respondents and also to prevent respondents 5 to 7 and their men from causing any obstruction to the enforcement of the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 and other similar agreements. Respondents 5 to 7 are the present Secretary, Executive Committee Member and General Secretary respectively of Thavakkara Unit of Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi.

(3.) The petitioner is a partnership firm mainly engaged in Civil Engineering contract work. The petitioner and the fourth respondent entered into an agreement for construction of Central Bus Terminal Complex at Kannur. After completion of the work successfully, the fourth respondent Kannur Municipality issued completion certificate to the petitioner. The construction was made under Build Operate and Transfer(BOT) Scheme whereby the petitioner was given 27 years of occupation of the bus stand complex with right to let out the building and collect rent including parking fee. Out of the 27 years, ten years are over and there remains 17 years of right to the petitioner to operate and transfer the busstop under the BOT scheme. Respondent No.5 is the licencee under the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 deed of licence on par with executed between the petitioner and respondent No.5. Fifth and sixth respondents have also executed similar deeds of licence Ext.P1 with the petitioner. Respondents 5 to 7 however began to cause obstruction to the smooth parking of the vehicles with a view to abstain from paying parking fee. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has got every right to charge the parking fee for the parking of vehicles at the licenced premises irrespective of as to whether the vehicle is parked by the licencee, his employees or anybody else. This being the position, the petitioner through its Manager submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the first respondent seeking police protection. Even after the receipt of Ext.P2 complaint, the first respondent is not taking any action in an effective manner. Hence,the petitioner is before us.