IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25296 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANOJ KUMAR N.R,S/O.LATE N.M.RAGHAVAN, PROPRIETOR,NRM ENTERPRISES,5/507(9/855), PARACKALCHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.NOW RESIDING AT NADUMURI HOSUE,MUTHALAMADA,GOVINDAPURAM POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541. 3. CI OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 506. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 506. 5. SHAJI,S/O.RAJAN,PARACKAL CHALLA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 507. 6. SUDEVAN,S/O.LATE THANKAN, PARACKAL CHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 507. 7. ASOKAN,S/O.DAMODHARAN, PARACKAL CHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 507. 8. SUNIL,S/O.LATE SUKUMARAN, PARACKAL CHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 507. 9. PANCHAN,S/O.MURTHY, PARACKAL CHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 507. 10. ARUMUGHAN,S/O.MURTHY, PARACKAL CHALLA,GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 507. ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R5 TO 10 GOVERNMENT PLEADER GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, PALAKKAD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY MUTHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPCY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY COF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION MADE UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX RULES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGORAPHS SHOWING PICTURES OF THE VEHICLE AND ITS SMASHED CONDITION. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20/9/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4 ON 20/9/2011. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ON RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 PETITION. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 ON RECEIPT OF EXT.P76 PETITION. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ON RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 PETITION. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONNDENT NO.4 ON RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 PETITION. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 23/7/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. EXT.R5(B): TRUE COPY FO THE COMCMUNICATION DATED 27/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE. EXT.R5(C) TRUE COPCY OF THE NEWS SITEM IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED JULY 23 2011. EXT.R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COMCPLAINT DATED 3/9/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL FARMERS CLUB BEFORE THE EMUTHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R5(E) TRUE COPY FO THE COCMCPLINT DATED 3/9/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL FARMERS CLUBC BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CHITTUR TALAUK D EVELOPMENT COMCMITTEE. R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 25296 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 17th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 4, all police officials to afford protection to the petitioner for the peaceful conduct of a small scale industrial unit by name NRM Enterprises where he undertakes the activity of cleaning broken weathered rocks. According to him, he has due licence from the Department of Industry under Ext.P1, licence by the Panchayat under Ext.P2 and permission from the Pollution Control Board, under Ext.P3. He got requisite VAT registration under Ext.P4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that Resplendent 5 to 10, who are described as local muscle man, are attempting to illegally obstruct the peaceful running of the petitioner's industrial unit. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this present petition under Article 226 of the WPC.25296/2011 2 Constitution. 2. This petition was filed on 22/9/20101. When the matter came up for hearing on 23/9/2011, notice was ordered. The case was posted to 27/9/2011. On that day, it was reported to the court by the learned Government Pleader that there is a stop memo issued to the petitioner from the Panchayat, which prohibits plying of heavy vehicles along the public road. No interim direction was issued. However, on 30/9/2011 when the matter came up before another Bench, the learned Government Pleader was directed to request the Sub Inspector of Police to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to operate the plant for two weeks. That interim order is in force till today. 3. Respondents 5 to 10 have entered appearance. According to them, the petitioner is attempting to steal a march against them to avoid valid objections which they have raised against the improper and illegal conduct of the industrial unit by the petitioner which threatens local environment and also causes damage to the local roads for use of the public. They pointed out that the petitioner has come to this Court without any bona fides. On the complaints of the local people, panchayat WPC.25296/2011 3 had issued a notice on 3/9/2011 calling upon the petitioner to explain why licence should not be revoked. The petitioner had submitted reply to said notice issued by the Panchayat on 15/9/2011. Suppressing that information, the petitioner had come to this Court on 22/9/2011 with the present petition. In the petition significantly, there is absolute silence about the said proceedings. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to10 submits that the attempt of the petitioner was to frustrate the proceedings before the Panchayat by securing an interim order of police protection. Ultimately such order was obtained on 30/9/2011. The Panchayat, it is pointed out, has passed an order on 1/10/2011 cancelling Ext.P2 licence issued to the petitioner to run the small scale industrial unit. The learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 10 submits that at the moment the petitioner has no valid licence to run the industrial unit and the attempt is to somehow run the unit without the licence with the help of the interim order passed by this Court. It is prayed that the petitioner may not be permitted to ignore the order dated 1/10/2011 passed by the Panchayat and run the industrial unit with police protection. WPC.25296/2011 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that it is true that petitioner had received a notice dated 3/9/2011 from the Panchayat. It is true that reply dated 15/9/2011 was issued by the petitioner to the Panchayat. It is also true that in this petition dated 22/9/2011, the petitioner had not revealed any information about such proceedings pending before the Panchayat. The petitioner would justify the same on the plea that the petitioner assumed that in the light of reply dated 15/9/2011, no further action would be initiated against the petitioner by the Panchayat. All through the unit was being run and the petitioner had no reasons to assume that the Panchayat would revoke the licence, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Government Pleader submits that the Panchayat had already issued a stop memo but the police have been affording police protection on the strength of the interim order dated 30/9/2011 passed by this Court and extended till this date. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 11/10/2011, the petitioner had filed writ petition before another Bench of this court and obtained an ex parte ad interim order of WPC.25296/2011 5 stay against the order of the Panchayat dated 1/10/2011 . In the light of that order of stay passed by the learned single Judge, the order dated 1/10/2011 of the Panchayat has no force, contends the counsel. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We must say that we are not satisfied about the bona fides of the petitioner. It is crystal clear that the petitioner has consciously and deliberately suppressed information about the proceedings initiated by the Panchayat against him and the reply given by him to the said proceedings issued by the Panchayat. Significantly and crucially, the Panchayat has not been made a party to this petition. It is also submitted that the action of the Panchayat has not been challenged before the Tribunal for local Self Government institution. 8. It is, of course, true that an ad interim ex parte order of stay has been obtained vide order dated 11/10/2011 in WPC. 2671/2011. But, we are certainly not persuaded to agree that an order of police protection need be granted to the petitioner to run his establishment, contrary to the order passed by the Panchayat on the strength of the ad interim ex parte order of WPC.25296/2011 6 stay granted by this Court. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We make it clear that the option of the petitioner to challenge the order of the Panchayat and to seek police protection later, if he succeeds in such challenge shall remain unfettered by this judgment. R.BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.