IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7979 of 2011(V) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- ROY KURIAKOSE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AM GRANITES, PULICKAL KAVALA, KANAM.P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLIKKATHODU P0LICE STATION, ANIKKAD.P.O- 686 503. 2. THOMASUKUTTY, KODUMTHARA HOUSE, KANAM.P.O- 686 515. 3. THOMAS VARGHESE, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, KANAM.P.O- 686 515. 4. VARGHESE VARGHESE, PUTHUKKALAM HOUSE, KANAM.P.O- 686 515. 5. VARGHESE MATHEW, AMBALAVAYALIL HOUSE, KANAM.P.O- 686 515. *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED *6. THE SECRETARY, KANGAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED SUOMOTO VIDE ORDER DTD.6/4/11 IN WP(C) R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE R6 BY ADV. SRI. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 7979 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT DATED 21.04.2010 & PLAN. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 12.04.2010 ISSUED BY KANGAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 10.09.2007. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF KANGAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 23.2.2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT KANGAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 26.2.2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 09.03.2011. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 09.03.2011. EXT.P8 : LOCATION MAP OF SY.NO.46/1-1-1, VAZHHOR VILLAGE SHOWING PETITIONER'S METAL CRUSHER UNIT AND PADINJATTU PAKUDI UDAYAPURAM PANCHAYATH ROAD. EXT.P9 : THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE UNIT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 18-2-10. EXT.P10 : COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH OF THE METAL CRUSHER UNIT WITH ROADS LEADING TO IT FROM CHANGANASSERY VAZHOOR ROAD. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE LETTER PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH ON 3-6-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF A LOCATION MAP OF THE PETITIONER'S METAL CRUSHER UNIT IS SITUATED DT. NIL. EXT.R6(a) : COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT REGISTER SHOWING THE NAMES OF THE ROAD. EXT.R6(b) COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.II DATED 24.11.2010 OF THE KANGAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. (Contd...) WP(C).No. 7979 of 2011(V) EXT.R6(c) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT.R6(d) COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 17.12.2010 OF THE KANGAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXT.R6(e) COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.I (1) OF MEETING OF THE KANGAZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 16.6.2011. EXT.R6(f) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT (REVENUE) DEPARTMENT ALLOTTING RS.2/- LAKHS FOR THE REPAIRING OF UDAYAPURAM – PADINJATTUPAKUTHY ROAD (AS ITEM NO. 10). EXT.R6(g) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.2.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.7979 of 2011-V ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner, the owner of a crusher unit, has come to this Court complaining of illegal obstruction from respondents 2 to 5 against the movement of the vehicles to his crusher unit. 2. According to the petitioner, he runs the crusher unit in accordance with law after obtaining all necessary permits, licences etc. Respondents 2 to 5, local inhabitants, are unnecessarily raising obstruction against such running of the crusher unit by the petitioner. In particular it is alleged that they are causing obstruction to the movement of the vehicles to and from the crusher unit. They have no right to raise any such obstruction. It is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued. 3. Respondents 2 to 4 have entered appearance. They contend that the objection is only on the basis of the bad condition of the road. If heavy vehicles to and from the petitioner's crusher unit were also to be permitted to use the road, that would further aggravate the condition of the road. In these circumstances, respondents 2 to 5 pray that no order of police protection may be granted. W.P(C) No.7979 of 2011-V 2 4. The 6th respondent grama panchayat was subsequently impleaded. There was a proposal to harmoniously settle the dispute. The petitioner offered that the damaged road shall be repaired by him at his expense to persuade respondents 2 to 5 to harmoniously settle the dispute. It is accordingly that the 6th respondent was subsequently arrayed as a party. 5. Time was granted for the parties to work out a settlement. The petitioner still maintains that he will advance amounts to ensure that the road is retained in a motorable condition. But the learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the 6th respondent is unable to accept that offer of the petitioner. The panchayat is itself preparing to exhaustively repair the road and necessary funds have already been located. The repair work will be undertaken in a short time after the monsoon and, in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to repair the road, submits the learned counsel for the 6th respondent. 6. Respondents 2 to 5 have raised objections that the crusher unit is not being run in accordance with law. Suffice it to say that no materials have been placed before us in support of this submission. 7. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for W.P(C) No.7979 of 2011-V 3 submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that local inhabitants are objecting to the vehicles to and from the crusher unit using the road for fear that such user may further aggravate the already deplorable condition of the road. 8. It is admitted at all hands that legally there is no restriction against the use of the road by the vehicles of the petitioner. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that respondents 2 to 5 cannot be permitted to illegally obstruct the movement of the petitioner's vehicles through the road. There is a contention that the petitioner has alternative routes to reach his crusher unit. But according to the petitioner those other routes involve very high gradiants and sharp turnings and it is therefore not possible for the petitioner to meet his requirements by directing his vehicles through such other roads. 9. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The State, certainly has power to prevent movement of heavy vehicles through any particular road for valid reasons. No such bar has been placed by any authority so far admittedly. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the objection by respondents 2 to 5 against the use of the road by the petitioner for transport of materials in vehicles. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that this petition can be allowed and appropriate directions can W.P(C) No.7979 of 2011-V 4 be issued. 10. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) The 1st respondent is directed to afford police protection to the petitioner for the movement of the vehicles of the petitioner to and from the petitioner's crusher unit through Padinjatinpakudi Udayapuram Panchayat road against any obstruction that is raised by respondents 2 to 5; c) We make it clear that we have not intended in any way to fetter the powers of the State and its officials to pass appropriate orders placing restrictions on the use of the road in accordance with law; d) We have not intended to fetter the rights of respondents 2 to 5 or any other to take appropriate proceedings against the petitioner if they have a grievance that the crusher unit is not being run in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/