IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7768 of 2011(U) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JAISON JACOB, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. V.C.CHACKO, VATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM.P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, RAMAPURAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686591. 2. SANTHOSH, KOLLAPPALLY HOUSE, KOODAPPULAM.P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686576. 3. JOHNSON, KOLLAPPALLY HOUSE, KOODAPPULAM (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686576. 4. AVIRACHAN, KOLLAPPALLY HOUSE, KOODAPPULAM.P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686576. 5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE PULLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001. WPC.7768/11 -2- 6. THE SECRETARY, RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAPURAM BAZAR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686576. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R5 SRI.ANIL S.RAJ FOR R2-4 SMT.K.N.RAJANI FOR R2-4 SMT.ANILA PETER FOR R2-4 SRI.G.ARUN GOPAN FOR R2-4 SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R6 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM FOR R6 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 08/06/10 VALID UPTO 30/06/2012 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DATED 13/12/10. EXT.P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, KOTTAYAM DATED 26/11/10 TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P5:- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P6:- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/11 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P5 EXT.P7:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/06/11 IN APPEAL NO.183/11 ON THE FILES OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXTS:- EXT.R2(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN I.A. NO.250/2011 IN APPEAL NO.183/2011 DATED 10/03/11. EXT.R2(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALA SEEKING SALES TAX PARTICULARS OF M/S VIJAYA METAL CRUSHERS DATED 13/01/2011. EXT.R2(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/01/11. EXT.R2(D):- TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04/11/2010. EXT.R2(E):- TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FRAMED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND PUBLISHED IN ITS OFFICE ORDER NO.PCB/TAC/ST.CR.COM/65/2005 DATED 17/10/07. EXT.R2(F):- ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS (4 NOS) EVIDENCING THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(G):- TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER,VELLILAPPILLY TO THE OFFICE OF THE RDO, PALA DATED 03/01/2011. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.7768 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “1) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and the functioning of the crusher unit of the petitioner which is running with all relevant licenses from the concerned department. 2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and the renovation work carried out by the petitioner in his unit against the obstruction caused by respondents 2 to 4 and men under them. 3) Direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 2 to 4 and those miscreants under them who are creating obstruction to the renovation work carried out by the petitioner in his unit on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2; and W. P. C. No.7768 of 2011 -2- 4) Issue such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a crusher unit . The petitioner purchased the said unit in the year 2010. Since it was an old crusher, petitioner started renovating the unit by installing necessary structures etc. after obtaining necessary permissions from the 5th and 6th respondents, the Pollution Control Board and the Panchayath respectively. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the 'consent to operate' issued by the 5th respondent/The Pollution Control Board and Ext.P2 is the true copy of the permit issued by the 6th respondent/The Secretary Ramapuram Grama Panchayath. 3. It is alleged that respondents 2 to 4 along with some miscreants are causing obstructions to the renovation work being carried out by the petitioner in his crusher unit. Though the petitioner sought help of the police by filing W. P. C. No.7768 of 2011 -3- Ext.P5 complaint, no help or protection was rendered. The petitioner, therefore, sought for the above relief. 4. We heard counsel for the Panchayath; the Government Pleader and counsel for respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4 filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that Ext.P2 order issued by the Panchayath has been stayed by the Tribunal until further orders, a copy of which is marked as Ext.R2(a). Respondents also contended that the D&O licence for the period 2009-2010 was originally given by the Panchayath to one Rajan and the said Rajan sold the property and the crusher unit to the petitioner. Hence, as the property has been transferred by Rajan, the licence issued in his name will stand cancelled. 5. The petitioner in his reply affidavit contended that Ext.R2(a) was an ex-parte order and later after hearing both sides, the Tribunal elaborately considered the matter and dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents vide W. P. C. No.7768 of 2011 -4- Ext.P7. The Tribunal also made it clear that the petitioner cannot start operating the unit unless he obtains licence under D & O Rules. 6. In the light of the facts stated both by 5th and 6th respondents, there is no reason as to why relief should not be granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution which was seized of the matter has held that the petitioner can function the unit only after getting D&O licence from the 6th respondent. 7. The petitioner has produced statutory documents in support of his claim. The statutory authorities have expressed that they have no objection in the petitioner carrying out renovation work in accordance with respective sanctions given by the authorities. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and his men to carry out the renovation work in petitioner's unit as well as for his W. P. C. No.7768 of 2011 -5- life. 8. It is made clear that the factory or the unit will commence operation only after D&O licence is obtained by the petitioner. 9. This Writ Petition is thus, disposed of. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE kns/-