IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28168 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. AL NASSAR GRANITES PVT. LTD.,VALIAKALAM, IRAVOOR, UZHAMALAICKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.NASARUDEEN MUSALIAR. 2. NASARUDEEN MUSALIAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AL NASSAR GRANITES PVT.LTD, VALIAKALAM, IRAVOOR, UZHAMALAICKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARAYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARAYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 5. SHAJEEV, S/O.SUDHEENDRA DAS, MANGALODAYAM VEEDU, ERAVOOR, ARYANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 6. V. KUMARASWAMI, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, PARVATHY VILASAM VEEDU, ERAVOOR, ARAYANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 7. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, VIJAYA MANDIRAM, VALIYAKALAM, ERAVOOR, ARYANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 8. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN, MUKKALITHADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKOM, ARYANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 9. JOMON ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, A.K.A-21, THOPPIL LANE, ANAYARA P.O., ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029. ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP FOR R5-8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.29349 OF 2011 ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28168 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DTD. 16.03.2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD.08.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VALID TILL 31.05.2014. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD. 10.10.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR QUARRYING AND SELLING METAL. EXT.P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD.10.10.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR RUNNING A METAL CRUSHER UNIT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OCMPALINT DTD. 10.10.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OCMPLAINT DTD. 10.10.2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.10.10.2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.10.10.2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF FIR DTD. 15.08.2011 AND NUMBERED AS 780/2011 LODGED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 28168 of 2011 & W.P(C).No. 29349 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. W.P(C).No.29349 of 2011 is filed in public interest, challenging the proposal for quarrying stone from the premises of the petitioners in W.P(C).No.28168 of 2011, and W.P(C).No.28168 of 2011 is filed for police protection for mining without obstruction from petitioners in W.P(C).No.29349 of 2011 and others. 2. We heard counsel for petitioners in both Writ Petitions and also the Government Pleader. 3. W.P(C).No. 29349 of 2011 is filed alleging pollution and danger to public life on account of the quarrying operations being commenced by the petitioners in W.P(C).No.28168 of 2011. However, the case of the petitioners in W.P(C).No.28168 of 2011 is that they have all the permits and clearances from all statutory authorities, namely, Panchayat, Pollution Control Board, Explosive Controller etc. and so much so, they are entitled to carry on quarrying operations without any obstruction whatsoever. The WPC.28168 & 29349/11 2 prayer of the petitioners in that case is to direct the police to provide police protection for quarrying operations. 4. After hearing both sides, we feel that if the licensee is above to carry on quarrying operations without any risk to public life and pollution in the area, then they should be permitted to carry on the business. In the first place, it is a business, which will provide employment to a large number of people and secondly, very few places are suitable for quarrying operations and the licensee has admittedly 25 acres of single plot land for mining. We, therefore, feel that the quarrying operations should not be obstructed by the local residents on allegation of pollution or risk to public life, unless there any such problem is created by the licensee. 5. Accordingly, we dispose of both the Writ Petitions permitting the licensee to start the business and the objectors and the local residents to watch the quarrying operation. If there is any threat to public life and if there is any pollution, the objectors and the local residents are free to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer with a copy of this judgment and the Revenue Divisional Officer will watch the quarrying operations and if there is any damage, pollution or like objectionable to peaceful life of the people of the area, he will prohibit the WPC.28168 & 29349/11 3 quarrying operations. We feel that no obstruction from any person can be permitted against the running of lawful business carried on by the petitioners in W.P(C).No.28168 of 2011 and if there is any obstruction from any person, the police will provide necessary protection to the petitioners in W.P(C).No.28168 of 2011. 6. Petitioners in W.P(C).No.29349 of 2011 have raised an allegation that the licensee has utilised even puramboke land for construction of road to the quarry. The road constructed to the quarry can be utilised by the public and so much so, the public are also beneficiaries of the road constructed and maintained by the licensee. We declare the position that except the road portion in the exclusive property of the petitioners in W.P(C).No.28268 of 2011, the balance portion of the road should be treated as a public road. However, this judgment should not be interpreted as a licence to the licensee to enter upon the puramboke land and construct a road merely because the public are entitled to use the road. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE vgs