IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25462 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, MACHINGAPALLATH HOUSE, MUPLIYAM, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, PIN 680 003. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DIST. PIN- 680 301. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DIST, PIN 680 303. 4. SATHEESAN, S/O.IMMATTI, MALIEKKAL HOUSE, INCHAKUNDU P.O., MUPLIYAM, THRISSUR DIST., PIN 680312. 5. SOJAN, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, INCHAKUNDU P.O., MUPLLIYAM, TRHISSUR DIST., PIN 680312. 6. DEVASSY @ SUNNY, S/O.AGASTHY, PUTHIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, INCHAKUNDU P.O., MUPLIYAM, TRHISSUR DIST., PIN 680312. 7. BIJU, S/O.DEVASSIA, ULLATTIL HOUSE,INCHAKUNDU P.O., MUPLIYAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680312. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R4-7 BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 25462/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.16084/2011 DATED 06/07/2011 P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC. NO.20821/2011. P3: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 02/04/2011 ISSUED BY MUPLIYAM VILLAGE. P4: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR DATED 25/04/2011. P5: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 25/04/2011. P7: COPY OF THE LE 3 LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THE EXPLOSIVES RULES 2008. P8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/09/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(a):COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AM-5/63/96 DATED 01/01/1977 ISSUED BY THE CURATOR, ARCHEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT,THRISSUR. R4(b):COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA (METRO MANORAMA) DATED 15/09/2011. R4(c):COPYOF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN METRO MANORAMA DATED 16/09/2011. R4(d):COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1-10122/11(2) DATED 07/09/2011 REQUIRING THE TALUK SURVEYOR, MUKUNDAPURAM. R4(e):COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THESE RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VARANTHARAPILLY. R4(f):COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30/05/2011 ACKNOWLEDGING THE ACCEPTANCE OF EXT. R4(e) REPRESENTATION. Svs ........2/-.... ...2... WPC. NO.25462/2011 R4(g):COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.15 DATED 17/09/2011 OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION OF THE VARANTHARAPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. R4(h):COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.488 DATED 17/09/2011 OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HEALTH AND EDUCATION, VARANTHARAPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 25462 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim , J. This writ petition is filed seeking direction for police protection to the functioning of petitioner's quarry run on the basis of Ext.P5 licence issued by the Grama Panchayat, from not being obstructed in any manner by respondents 4 to 7. Averments in the writ petition are to the effect that on an earlier occasion when there was obstructions from the side of the members of certain trade unions, the petitioner had approached this court seeking police protection. The dispute raised at that time was regarding engagement of workers. This court in Ext.P1 judgment directed that, in case there is any obstruction from the side of the respondent unions, then the police shall render adequate and sufficient protection. After Ext.P1 judgment, apprehending that the Varandrappilly Grama Panchayat, within WPC.No.25462/2011 2 whose jurisdiction the quarry is situated is initiating proceedings to interfere with functioning of the quarry, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No.20811/2011. It is stated that the said writ petition was closed on the basis of statement filed by the Grama Panchayat to the effect that they are not taking any steps to interfere with functioning of the quarry. 2. According to the petitioner, the quarry is being operated on the strength of all requisite licences, permits and consents. It is stated that the respondents 4 to 7 have no manner of right to interfere with functioning of the quarry. But, it is alleged that they have caused threat to the life of the petitioner and his workers and they are causing all sort of physical obstructions. It is the complaint of the petitioner that, inspite of request made before respondents 1 to 3 to remove such obstructions and to afford protection, no steps has been taken. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 7 it is contended that the quarry in question is situated in an area which is preserved and protected by the Archaeological Department. Exts.R4(a) to Ext.R4(c) documents were produced WPC.No.25462/2011 3 in order to show that the officers of the Archeological Department had issued directions to various authorities to ensure stoppage of quarrying operations . It is also contended that the petitioner had encroached into land owned by the Government and the Tahsildar concerned had initiated proceedings with the Taluk Surveyor for survey and demarcation of the boundaries. However, the grievance of respondents 4 to 7 at present is that the quarrying operations is being conducted in a manner causing danger to their life and property. It is stated that the 4th respondent is residing very close to the quarry and the blasting operations are causing danger to the lives of his family members. According to the respondents, they have approached the Grama Panchayat and Ext.R4 (g) resolution was adopted on 17/9/2011, for directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to cancel the licence issued to the petitioner. However, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 conceded that those respondents have no intention to cause any physical obstructions or to raise any threat to the life of the petitioner or his workers. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of WPC.No.25462/2011 4 respondents 1 to 3 submitted that no complaint as that of Ext.P8 was received from the petitioner and that no law and order situation was reported. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the opinion that, as long as the petitioner is running the quarrying operations on the strength of requisite valid permits and licences, the respondents 4 to 7 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions. Of course, if there is any violation of the conditions incorporated in such licences and permits or if there is violation of any statutory provisions, the party respondents will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority or to seek relief from the competent court of law or other forum to prevent such illegal operation. At any rate, if there is any physical obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 7 for the conduct of the quarry in a legal manner, the same need be restrained. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioners to approach the 2nd and 3rd respondents if there is any physical obstruction or threat to the life of the petitioners or their workers. If any WPC.No.25462/2011 5 intimation is received by respondents 2 an 3 in this regard, effective steps shall be taken to prevent such obstructions and threats provided all the requisite licence and permit obtained by the petitioner is remaining valid and in force, and tht no competent authority had directed stoppage of the quarrying operation. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk