IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14783 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. MR. VARKEY VARGHESE, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, THEYATH HOUSE, MELVELLOOR P.O., VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. MR. T.K. BINOY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, VELLOOR VILLAGE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. MR. GOPAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, MUKKATH HOUSE, VELLOOR VILLAGE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLOOR POLICE STATION, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. MR. T.V. SATHYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE T.N.VIJAYAN, PAYATH HOUSE,MEVELLOOR P.O. VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KL-2/B-2635. 5. MR.C.K.SAJIMON, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN, CHEMBAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MEVELLOOR P.O. VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO.KL-2/B-2635. 6. MR. JIMMY JOHN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, KALATHURATH HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KL-7/L-4068. 7. MR. JOBBIN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. JOY, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO.KL-7/L-4068. 8. MR. K.K. RAVI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAN, THATTUPURATH HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. MR. P.N. AJIMON, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. NARAYAN, THAZHAKUZHIYORATH HOUSE,MEVELLOOR PO VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE (AREEKATTEL) FOR R4-6,8 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN KOSHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITINERS' EXHIBTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO.73/08-09/0S/QP/1072/DOY/ML/08 DATED11.4.2008 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO. 1075/07-08/0S/QP/562/DOY/ML/08 DATED 25.2.2008 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO.70/08-09/OS/QP/1068/DOY/ML/08 DATED 10.4.2008 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATD 10.5.2008 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATD 12.5.2008 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATD 12.5.2008 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K. HEMA, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P(C)No. 14783 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioners are engaged in sand mining. They mine ordinary sand on the strength of Exts.P1 to P3 permits obtained by them from the Geologist of the District. They were running the quarries and selling sand to their customers. Respondents 4 to 7 are owners and drivers of the vehicles who used to come to the mining site of the petitioners and purchase sand. Respondents 8 and 9 are workmen engaged in sand mining. There was a dispute between petitioners and workmen concerning the price of the sand sold to local people. When the difference could not be resolved amicably, the party-respondents were causing obstruction to the mining of sand and also the transporting of the same. The petitioners submitted that vehicles coming from distant places to the quarrying site are being prevented by the party-respondents and therefore the petitioners cannot continue their business. They have preferred Exts.P4 to P6 2 representations before the Police seeking necessary protection so that they can do the quarrying and vehicles can freely come to their quarrying site. Since the Police did not extend any help, this Writ Petition was filed. The respondents 4 to 6 and 8 filed counter-affidavit resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. 2. We heard learned Government Pleader for the official respondents also. We feel that we are not justified in ordering protection to the petitioners. If this Court orders protection to the petitioners for mining and transport of sand, other statutory authorities will be powerless in restraining the petitioners if the mining of sand affects the life of people of the locality. So, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the civil court, especially in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thilakan v. Circle Inspector of Police [2008(1) KLT 141]. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and the right of the petitioners to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K. Balakrishnan Nair (Judge) K. Hema (Judge) krs.