RAGHAVAN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ------------------------------------------------W.P(C). No. 22948 OF 2012-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12th day of October, 2012J U D G M E N TK. M. Joseph, JPetitioner has approached this court seeking the following relief :“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondentNos.1 to 3 to provide effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and from the illegal obstructions from respondents 4 to 6 and their men by not to park vehicles resisting the free ingress and egress of the petitioner to his house.ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action upon the Exhibit P1 and P2petitions filed by the petitioner.2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The house of petitioner is near to Nedungolam Junction in Paravoor of Kollam district.

Respondents 4 to 6 are drivers ofautorikshaws parked in front of petitioner's house. They wereenimical towards the petitioner and recently they themselves formed an autorikshaw stand in front of the petitioner's house resisting the ingress and egress of the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner filed a complaint and is before us. WP(c).22948/1223. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petition was enquired into and it was found that autorikshaw has been parked in front of petitioner's house as complained, on that day. They have been asked not to obstruct the ingress and egress towards the petitioner's house.5. Learned counsel for party respondents would submit that there is a board fixed showing that it is an auto stand. At the same time she submits that proceedings are pending to make itan authorised auto stand.

So at present, there is no authorised auto stand. At any rate, more importantly, learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that there is no parking in front of petitioner's house by blocking the free ingress and egress of petitioner's house.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to acommunication from the Paravoor Municipality to the effect that there is no parking stand there. We record the submissions and dispose of the writ petition as follows: In case the petitioner complains to the 3rd respondent of any obstruction from respondents 4 to 6 in the matter of parking of WP(c).22948/123vehicles blocking the free ingress and egress of the petitioner'shouse, he will look into it and if it is found genuine he will see to it that respondents 4 to 6 do not obstruct the free ingress and egress of petitioner's house by parking the vehicles in front of his house. Sd/- K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE.Sou. // True copy //