IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35428 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.V.PAUL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S POLYFORMALIN PVT. LTD., CHEMMANAD UNIT, VARIKKOLI P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM 682 308, BY ADV. SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN SRI.PAUL KURIAKOSE SRI.ANISH K.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 3. T.C. SCARIA, S/O. CHANDI, THENUMKUTTIYIL, CHERUKUDIYIL, MAMALA. 4. T.K.SAJU, S/O. KUNJUMON, V-363, THENUMKUTTIYIL, CHEMMANADU, VARIKOLI P.O. 5. YOHANNAN, S/O. KURIACKO, KAIPPANAL, CHEMMANADU, VARIKOLI P.O., 6. DAVID LAZER, RUBBER PLANTER, CHEMMNADU VARIKOLI P.O. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 35428 OF 2008-P ----------------------------------------- Dated 5th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a Private Limited Company. He is proposing to set up an industrial unit in Thiruvaniyoor Grama Panchayat. The respondents 3 to 6 and others, who are residents of the locality of the site where the petitioner proposes to establish the industrial unit, are protesting against the same. According to them, the petitioner's unit will cause pollution in the area. The petitioner claims, he is using state-of-the-art technology and therefore, there will not be any pollution. He submits, he has obtained Ext.P1 consent from the Pollution Control Board for establishing the unit. While so, on 25.11.2008, the local people caused obstruction to a tanker lorry bringing drinking water to the company. One of those assembled there, one Mr.Zacharia came to the petitioner and warned WPC 35428/08 2 him that he will be finished off. So, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the police, seeking appropriate action against the culprits. On 24.11.2008, the petitioner had already filed Ext.P3 representation, claiming police protection for the construction of a compound wall. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: “A. To call for the records and proceedings of the respondents evidenced herein by Exts.P1 to P4 and after scrutiny thereof, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to afford sufficient and effective police protection to the life and property of the petitioner, his staff members, employees and factory, by the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. B. To direct respondents 1 and 2 by the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to afford sufficient and effective police protection to the petitioner for the purpose of running his factory at Chemmanad, Puthencruz and to do all that is necessary to ensure that the respondents 3 to 6 and their supporters, agents and servants are prevented from interfering in any manner with the working of the petitioner's factory.” 2. We notice that the prayer in Ext.P3 is for appropriate action from the part of the police to help the petitioner to reconstruct a compound wall of his factory site. But, in view of the decisions of this Court in M.G.Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 901] and WPC 35428/08 3 Devadasan v. State of Kerala [2005(3) KLT 739], no protection can be granted for reconstructing the compound wall. The prayer in Ext.P4 is to take action against the person who threatened the petitioner. If the police do not take any action, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the superior police officer or the criminal court concerned. Based on Exts.P3 and P4 representations, the reliefs sought cannot be granted. The prayers in the representations have nothing to do with prayers A and B of the petitioner quoted above. In the absence of any demand, the police cannot be accused of any breach of duty. 3. Further, if anybody is causing obstruction to the erection of machinery or such other things on the ground that the factory will cause pollution, the petitioner can move the competent civil court and get appropriate orders. The civil court, if found necessary, can address the police also, to assist the petitioner for enforcing its orders. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition will not affect the rights of the petitioner or his WPC 35428/08 4 contentions to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/