IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6641 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LATHEEF, S/O.BEERAN, THEKKEMALI HOUSE, THANDEKKAD, PONJASSERRY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, (PROPRIETOR, GREEN LAND PLYWOODS, KUTTILANJI, IRMALLUR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK). BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY, SMT.R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL). RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, 683 541. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, 683 541. 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA-683 101. 4. MEETHEAN, S/O.MEERAKUTTY, AATTAYAM HOUSE, PAZHOORMOLEM, KUTTILANJIKARA, IRAMALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, 683 543. 5. RASHEED, S/O.PAREED, PARATHIKKATT HOUSE, PAZHOORMOLEM, KUTTILANJIKARA, IRAMALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, 683 543. WP(C).No. 6641 of 2011(E) 6. SIDQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED, AATTAYAM HOUSE, PAZHOORMOLEM, KUTTILANJIKARA, IRAMALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, 683 543. 7. SHAMEER, S/O.IBRAHIM, ENNAPILAYI HOUSE, PAZHOORMOLEM, KUTTILANJIKARA, IRAMALLOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, 683 543. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. R4 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SRI.BYJU KURIAKOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6641 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 23/10/2009. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 21/10/2010. EXT.P1(b): COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/11/2010. EXT.P1(ba): COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23/11/2009. EXT.P1(c): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPOUND WALL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD WHICH IS VALID UP TO 09/01/2013. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE TOWN PLANNER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE BUILDING. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE BUILDING. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.B. PROVIDING POWER SANCTION. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL BANK, PERUMBAVOOR SHOWING THE LOAN TRANSACTION FOR THE INDUSTRY. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25/02/2011. EXT.P9(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6641 of 2011-E ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to him to install his factory as permitted by Exts.P2, P8 etc. against contumacious, culpable and violent obstruction on the part of respondents 4 to 7. 2. According to the petitioner, he has obtained the requisite licence to install the factory. He had purchased properties and the properties are bounded by a compound wall. Within the property bounded by the compound wall, he wants to install factory as permitted by Exts.P2 and P8. Local people are unnecessarily raising objections and obstructions to the installation and construction of the factory. They have no right to raise any such obstruction. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that police protection may be afforded as prayed for. W.P(C) No.6641 of 2011-E 2 3. Respondents 4 to 7 have entered appearance. That the petitioner has the requisite permit and licence, is not disputed. An interesting contention is raised by the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 brings to our notice Ext.P2 permit issued by the Pollution Control Board and submits that the Pollution Control Board has granted permission to install the factory in Sy.No.229/10 & 11. Ext.P8 also shows that permission is granted to install the factory in the said survey number. But attempt is now made to install the factory not in the said survey number, but in the property covered by Ext.P1(a), which was purchased by the petitioner long after he secured Ext.P2 consent from the Pollution Control Board. In these circumstances, Ext.P2 does not cover the attempt of the petitioner to install a factory in the property purchased under Ext.P1(a). According to respondents 4 to 7, the compound wall constructed for the factory property now has within it properties covered not only by Exts.P1 and P1(a), but other properties also, the details of acquisition of which properties are not divulged before Court. Respondents 4 to 7 have a further grievance that the running of the factory would result in environmental hazards to the local W.P(C) No.6641 of 2011-E 3 people. They raise a further grievance that even before the requisite consent was obtained for actually running the factory, the petitioner has started running the factory also. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is virtually no dispute that within the compound wall lies the property in Sy.No.229/10 & 11, to which Exts.P2 and P8 relate. We find that this aspect is not disputed. In these circumstances, we do not find much merit in the contention that Exts.P2 and P8 do not relate to the property, where the factory is now sought to be started. 5. About possibility of environmental pollution, we find that Ext.P2 consent to establish has already been obtained. A grievance is raised that the various conditions imposed in the order of consent have not been followed. We will assume that the Pollution Control Board has to and shall look into that aspect. It is not necessary for us to go into that aspect in detail now. 6. Only the consent to establish has been given. If the factory were to run without the requisite consent for running the factory, certainly the Pollution Control Board is bound to take action on that aspect. It is not necessary for us to go into that aspect also now. W.P(C) No.6641 of 2011-E 4 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner deserves to be granted protection to establish the factory as permitted under Exts.P2 and P8. We are satisfied that directions to that effect deserve to be issued. 8. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to grant police protection to the petitioner to act in strict compliance with Ext.P2 consent of the Pollution Control Board and Ext.P8 permit issued by the local panchayatl; c) We make it clear that this judgment will not fetter the right of respondents 4 to 7 to complain about the non compliance with the provisions of law before authorities or to initiate action if any necessary before courts if environmental hazards are faced by them. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/