IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26439 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABRAHAM MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, KIZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, NAGAPPUZHA, KALLOORKKAD, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATTUKAL, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 583. 2. YUSAF, AMBALATH (VAYALIL), ALANELLUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD- 678 582. 3. SHOUKKATH, NARUKKOTTIL, ARAKKUPARAMBA (PO), MALAPPURAM-676 505. 4. KUNHEETHUPPU, NARUKKOTTIL, ARAKKUPARAMBA (PO), MALAPPURAM-676 505. ADDL.R5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ALANELLUR, PALAKKAD. (ADDL. R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 11/10/20110) BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM (R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26439/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 22/2/2010 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFICER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/9/2011 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 26439 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Alanellur, Palakkad is suo motu impleaded as Additional 5th respondent. The Registry will carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. 2. The petitioner is a person engaged in agricultural operations of Pinapple cultivation. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 4 along with their supporters are causing obstructions to the cultivation, on the basis of a mistaken impression that the pesticide used by the petitioner for maintaining the cultivation is 'Endosulphan'. According to the petitioner, he never used such 'Endosulphan' and what is being used is only 'Ethiphon' which is a hormone intended for uniform flowering of the plants. Against the physical obstructions caused by respondents 2 to 4 and their followers, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 1st respondent. Since the first respondent has not taken any WPC.No.26439/2011 2 effective steps to remove such obstructions and to afford protection for the agricultural activities, this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent submitted on the basis of instructions received that, the petitioner is not using Endosulphan in the agricultural operations and the apprehension expressed by respondents 2 to 4 has no basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Agricultural Officer having jurisdiction in the area had issued Ext.P2 certificate to the effect that, the harmone- 'Ethiphon' used by the petitioner is intended for uniform flowering of the plants and that for using such harmone no permission is required from the Agricultural Office. 4. We heard Sri.P.Jayaram learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. It is submitted that usage of insecticides in the petitioner's cultivations is causing health hazards, and that the agricultural operations are done without taking adequate precaution with respect to the usage of insecticides. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that unless the petitioner is using any banned insecticides, he could not be prevented from continuing the WPC.No.26439/2011 3 agricultural operations. Respondents 2 to 4 or anybody claiming under them have no manner of right to cause any physical obstruction to such activities . Therefore, we direct the 1st respondent to take effective steps, if intimation is received regarding any physical obstructions caused to the agricultural operations conducted by the petitioner, to remove such obstructions and to afford protection. 5. In order to ensure that the petitioner is not using any banned insecticides or any insecticide beyond the permissible strength and dosage, we direct the Additional 5th respondent to conduct periodic inspections and to keep vigil over the situation. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.26439/2011 4