IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36364 of 2007(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.GEM GRANITES, 78, CATHEDRAL ROAD, CHENNAI, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, P.UMAPATHI, KALA BHAVAN, THERANI, ANAVOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY SUPDT. OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANCODU. 4. K.BABY, S/O.KUNJAN, MARUTHARATHALACKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, THERANI, ANAVOOR VILLAGE. 5. N.SIVARAJAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, JAYABHAVAN, THERANI. 6. G.MURUGHAN, CHAMAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THERANI. W.P.(C). NO.36364/2007-D: 7. Y.DASSAYAN, S/O.YOHANNAN, PEKKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU. 8. P.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PANTHADIVILA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 9. N.VIVEKANANDAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PANTHADIVILA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 10. SACHIDANANDAN, S/O.KUNJAN, CHAMAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THERANI. 11. G.RAJENDRAN, S/O.GOPINATHAN, KAVINMOOLA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 12. K.SIVARAJAN, S/O.KUTTAN, VATTAKULATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 13. K.MADHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNA PANICKER, VATTAKULATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 14. S.SISUPALAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KAVUMMOOLA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 15. THANKARAJ, KAVUMMOLA PUTHEN VEEDU, THERANI. 16. IMMANUEL, S/O.SIMSON, ERAMULAVANKODU, THERANI. 17. SHAJI, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, SHAJI BHAVAN, KAVINMOOLA, THERANI. 18. M.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.MRITHYUNJAYAN, IDDUKKUMMOODU HOUSE, THERANI. 19. VINU, S/O.APPU, PEKKUZHI VEEDU, THERANI. 20. REGHU, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, VATTAKULATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 21. V.SUNDARESAN, S/O.VISWANATHAN, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, THERANI. W.P.(C). NO.36364/2007-D: 22. C.CHANDRAN, THERANI. 23. S.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KALLARATHALAKKAL, THERANI. 24. S.ASOKAN, S/O.SOMAN, KALA BHAVAN, THERANI. 25. VIJAYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, ORUPARATHALAKKAL, THERANI. 26. UDAYANAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, THUNDUVILA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 27. N.SUKUMARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KEEZHE PARANIYAM, THERANI. 28. PUSPANGARAN, S/O.THANKAN, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, THERANI. 29. K.SREEKANTAN NAIR, PARAYAM VEETTU VILAKOM, ANAVOOR. 30. BALRAJ, S/O.THANKAYYAN NADAR, ARUVIKKARA VEEDU, THERANI. 31. GOPALARISHNAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KAVUMOOLA VEEDU, THERANI. 32. VIKRAMAN NAIR, S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI, KALLARA VEEDU, ANAVOOR. 33. SUNDARAN, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN NADAR, VATTAKULATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 34. N.SASIDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, VATTAKULATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 35. K.SASI, S/O.KUNJAN, KAVUMMOOLA VEEDU, THERANI. 36. PODIYAN, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN NADAR, VATTAKULATHU VEEDU, THERANI. 37. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, THOTTARUKUZHI VEEDU, ANAVOOR. 38. VISWANATHAN, SHAJI BHAVAN, THERANI. W.P.(C). NO.36364/2007-D: 39. S.MANIYAN, S/O.SOMAN, CHAMAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THERANI. 40. BHARGAVAN, MARUTHARA THALAKKAL VEEDU, THERANI. 41. VENUGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, VENU NIVAS, THERANI. 42. PRASANNAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KAVUMMOLLA VEEDU, THERANI. 43. G.THANKAPPAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, VENKOTTUKUZHI VEEDU, THERANI. 44. SIMON RAJ, VATTAKULATHU VEEDU, THERANI. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 45 TO 47 IMPLEADED: *45. THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. *46. THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATINKARA TALUK, NEYYATTINKARA. *47. THE PERUMKADAVILA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUMKADAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 45, 46 & 47 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. 16876/2007 DT. 18/12/2007. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A, ADV. SRI. GOPAKUMAR THALIYIL, ADV. SRI. R. GOPAN. ADV. SRI. G.P. SHINOD, ADV. SRI. RAMMOHAN G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON 14/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36364/2007-D: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT NO. 521/2006-07/5678/M3/2006 DTD. 21/11/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT NO. 522/2006-07/5677/M3/2006 DTD. 21/11/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE 13 WORKERS EMPLOYED AT THE QUARRY BELONGING TO TAMIL NADU. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27/11/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R.19.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 09/10/1998 FILED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.R.19.B: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 29/12/1998 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORKERS. EXT.R.19.C: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 12/12/2007 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.R.41.A: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DTD. 29/12/1998. EXT.R.41.B: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 12/12/2007. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36364 OF 2007-D ----------------------------------------- Dated 14th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the police may be directed to grant protection to the quarrying operations in the petitioner's property, for which it has obtained quarrying lease from the Director of Mining and Geology, as evident from Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings of the said officer. The respondents resisted the application, contending that the petitioner does not have the statutory licences/clearances under other relevant statutes and therefore, it is not entitled to do any quarrying. That being so, according to them, its prayer for police protection is untenable. But, according to the petitioner, once it has got the lease under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, nothing more is required to run the quarry. The above dispute is the point that arises for decision in this case. 2. The brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioner are the WPC 36364/07 2 following: The petitioner firm, represented by its Manager, submits that it is engaged in the quarrying, transportation and exporting of Dimension and Decorative Stones. The quarrying is done using the mechanical devices of “Diamond Wire Saw” and “Wedge and Feather”. It is not using any explosives. Dimension stones quarried are huge granite blocks having a size of 2 to 3 cubic metres and weighing about 10 to 15 tonnes. The quarrying operation is undertaken by expert workers, using mechanical devices. The said unit has an Excavator, two Air Compressors, Wire Saw Cutting devices, Cranes and 250 KWA Generator Sets. The quarrying is undertaken, based on the permission granted by the Director of Mining and Geology, as per Exts.P1 and P2 permits. The petitioner has executed a mining lease agreement with the Government on 8.1.2007 valid up to 7.1.2017. Rs.4000/- is paid per cubic metre of granite towards royalty and other charges. The quarry is located in two plots of land having an extent of 0.88 hectare in Sy.No.521/11 and 0.4058 hectare in R.S.No.525/3 of Perumkadavila Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram district. The granite blocks are transported to the factory of the petitioner at Chennai. They are sliced into slabs, polished and thereafter exported. The petitioner is engaging 13 workmen from Tamil Nadu, to do the work in the quarry. A list of those persons is produced as Ext.P3. It has also engaged four WPC 36364/07 3 unskilled workers from the local area as Watchmen and Helpers. The petitioner commenced operation of the quarry on 5.3.2007. While so, respondents 4 to 44 came to the quarry, demanding work. When the petitioner did not yield to their demand, they trespassed into the quarry on 27.11.2007 and obstructed the quarrying operations. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police to remove the obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 44. But, the police did not take any action, taking shelter behind the plea that they cannot interfere in a labour dispute. In view of the above position, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner and his workers to operate the quarry without any threat, intimidation or physical obstruction being caused by respondents 4 to 44 or anybody acting under them. (ii) to declare that the respondents 4 to 44 have no manner of right or authority to cause obstruction to the petitioner in conducting the quarrying operations within his premises by his own workers. (iii) to declare that the respondents 1 to 3 are bound to take action against respondents 4 to 44 for their criminal trespass to the quarry of the petitioner and causing threat and intimidation to the petitioner and his regular workers.” 3. The 1st respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a statement, opposing the claim of the petitioner for police protection. It is WPC 36364/07 4 submitted therein that the petitioner is running the quarry without taking necessary licence from the local Grama Panchayat. Therefore, the Perumkadavila Grama Panchayat had filed C.C.No.949/2003 before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Neyyattinkara, alleging offences punishable under Sections 232. 233 and 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is submitted that Crl.M.C. No.2072/2004 was filed before this Court to quash that complaint. The said Crl.M.C was dismissed by this Court by Annexure-R1(a) order. In the said order, it was held that the petitioner therein was not entitled to run the quarry in violation of Sections 232, 233 and 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The 1st respondent has also submitted that the petitioner was running a quarry in the very same site about seven years back. The respondents 4 to 44 were the workers of the above said quarry. Now, when the quarry started functioning again, those workers came demanding re-employment. It is a pure labour dispute. Therefore, the police did not interfere in the matter, it is submitted. 4.The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dealing with the averments in the statement of the 1st respondent. It is submitted that it was not the petitioner in Annexure R1(a) and the same does not relate to the petitioner firm. The allegation regarding stoppage of the quarrying operations earlier and its re-starting etc., are absolutely unfounded. It is also submitted that WPC 36364/07 5 the issue regarding the requirement of licence from the Grama Panchayat to run the quarry is pending before this Court. 5. The respondents 4 to 23 have filed a counter affidavit. They submit that the quarry was functioning since 1992. For blasting the granite, explosives are used. 10 cubic metres of granite is being extracted per day. The respondents 2 to 23 were working in the quarry from 1992. They were doing the drilling of the granite for the purpose of blasting. The 13th respondent was working as Watchman. Skilled workers are necessary only for dressing the granite. The major work in the quarry is drilling holes and filling them with explosives. It is alleged that from 1997 onwards, the workers are not being paid any benefits. Therefore, the respondents 4 to 44 filed a complaint before the police, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R19 (a). Later, a settlement was arrived at between the Manager of the petitioner and the representatives of the workers, agreeing to grant certain benefits to the workers. A copy of the agreement dated 29.12.1998 is produced as Ext.R19(b). But, the petitioner refused to honour the terms of Ext.R19(b). So, the workers have filed a complaint before the District Labour Officer, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R19(c). In order to deny the benefits under Ext.R19(b), this writ petition is filed, it is submitted. They also deny the allegations regarding trespass, violence etc. WPC 36364/07 6 6. Respondent Nos. 24, 26 to 34, 36 to 38 and 40 to 44 have also filed a counter affidavit, opposing the prayers in the writ petition. They substantially support the contentions of respondents 4 to 23. They also deny the allegations of trespass, violence etc. They only claim re-employment when the quarry started functioning, after it was stopped for some time. 7. The additional 47th respondent, the local Grama Panchayat has filed a statement, stating that the petitioner is running the unit without taking necessary licence from the Panchayat. It is also submitted that the present quarry is very near to the mythological sites like Pandavan para and Adappukootti para. The Pandavas, during their exile, are believed to have been stayed there for some time. Those mythological sites are being destroyed by the quarrying of the petitioner. The Panchayat also submits that the petitioner is using explosives for quarrying. It is further submitted that the Panchayat had passed a resolution on 29.12.2006, to take steps to stop all quarrying operations in the Panchayat area. 8. A statement has been filed by the Geologist of Thiruvananthapuram district, stating that the petitioner has got the necessary lease granted by the Government for quarrying granite. He fully supports the petitioner and goes to the extent of saying that there is no ecological or environmental problem, though the Geologist is not authorised to comment WPC 36364/07 7 on those aspects, by any statutory provision. 9. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by respondents 4 to 44 and respondent No.47, the local Grama Panchayat. It denies all the allegations of the said respondents. The petitioner disowns Ext.R19(b) settlement also. It also disputes the authenticity of Exts. R19(a) and R19(c). The operations of the firm do not come under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. According to it, cutting of dimension stones is covered by the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. 10. We heard learned senior counsel Sri.M.K.Damodaran and also learned counsel Sri.P.K.Vijayamohanan for the writ petitioner. We heard M/s.R.Gopan & Thaliyal R.Gopakumar for the party respondents, M/s.G.P.Shinod & G.Ram Mohan for the additional 47th respondent and also learned Government Pleader Sri.P.A.Salim for the official respondents. 11. The point that arises for decision is whether the petitioner, who has got the necessary permission under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules to extract granite, which is a minor mineral, is entitled to run the quarry without obtaining the necessary licence from the Grama WPC 36364/07 8 Panchayat under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has got licence under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which are framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, no other licence is required from the local Grama Panchayat for conducting the quarrying operations. We feel that it is manifestly an untenable contention for the following reasons. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is framed by the Parliament to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals, as evident from its preamble. The provisions of the Act deal with the general restrictions on undertaking prospecting and mining operations. Provision is also made for obtaining a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of lands, which vest in the Government. Provisions are also made concerning development of minerals. The power to frame Rules concerning minor minerals is conferred on the State Government under Section 15 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act says that Sections 5 to 13 will not apply to minor minerals. The scheme of the Act would show that it is concerned only with the development of mines and minerals. The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is framed for securing a greater measure of participation of the people in the planned development and in local WPC 36364/07 9 governmental affairs, by constituting Village, Block and District Panchayats. Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, deals with the purposes for which places may not be used without a licence. The said Section reads as follows: “232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence:--(1) The Village Panchayat may notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by the Secretary and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence: Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication.” Section 233(1) of the said Act says that no person shall, without the permission of the Village Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission, construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace;. The said provision reads as follows: “233. Permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery:--(1) No person shall, without the permission of the Village Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission,-- (a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power; or (b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not WPC 36364/07 10 being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.” The Rules framed under Section 232 are the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. The first schedule to the said Rules contains the matters in relation to which a licence is required. Item 100 of Schedule I to the said Rules reads as follows: “100. Granite, kadappa stone, mosaic, marble—cutting, storing, polishing, preparing, sculpturing or selling.” So, granite cutting is one of the purposes for which a licence is required under the above Rules. In this case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is cutting granite blocks. It is using heavy machinery for the same. The petitioner is also using electrical energy, generated by heavy generators. Admittedly, it has not obtained permission from the Panchayat to start the above work place, using mechanical and electrical energy in terms of Section 233(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Going by the above said Rules read with Section 232, the petitioner is bound to obtain D & O licence. Admittedly, the same has not been obtained by it. But, the above lapses from the part of the petitioner is sought to be justified by the learned senior counsel saying that since the petitioner has got lease for mining under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, it need not take WPC 36364/07 11 any licence/permission from the local Grama Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or the Rules framed thereunder. We notice that the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder operate in different fields. They occupy different areas. One, inter alia, is concerned with the well being of the people of the Grama Panchayat by regulating dangerous and offensive trades. If a dangerous or offensive trade takes place at a mine or a quarry, permit or licence for the same is required, notwithstanding the lease granted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. So, licence/permission under the one Act is not a substitute for the licence/permission under the other Act. The contention raised in this regard on behalf of the petitioner is untenable and we reject the same. This view taken by us is supported by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in C.A.Industries v. K.Poura Samithi [1995(2) KLT 720]. 12. For running its establishment, which is evidently a work place where heavy machinery and electricity are used, the petitioner must get the required permission under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act from the local Grama Panchayat. Therefore, without the necessary WPC 36364/07 12 permission/licences, the petitioner is not entitled to operate its quarry or mine. So, in the absence of any legal right to run its establishment, the petitioner cannot seek any police protection for the same. We make it clear that we have not considered the genuineness of the claims of the workmen for employment. They are to be decided by the appropriate authorities. It is also made clear that we have not decided regarding the requirement of clearance from the Pollution Control Board for the running of the petitioner's establishment, as the same has not been specifically raised and argued before us. 13. We may not be understood as having said by necessary implication that if the petitioner has all statutory clearances/permits/licences, it can walk into this Court, seeking police protection. Normally, it should approach the civil court against the obstruction, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in George v. Circle Inspector of Police [1990(1) KLT 741], wherein it was held that unless special reasons are pleaded as to why the remedy of civil suit is not efficacious, a petition for police protection under Article 226 should not be entertained. WPC 36364/07 13 In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/