IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 22108 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VINOD BHASKAR, VATTAKITHAYIL HOUSE, ENNANNALLOOR.P.O, KAKKATTUR, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN, SRI.M.V.JOSEPH (ALAPPUZHA). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANIKKAD POLICE STATION, POTHANIKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 671. 2. SRI NAVAS, PARATHANDEL HOUSE, ENNANNALLOOR.P.O, KALAMPOOR, MUVATUPUZHA - 686 673. *ADDL. R.3. IMPLEADED: 3. THE SECRETARY, VARAPETTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH,KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICTM. IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/8/11. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER, R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH, R3 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.22108/2011-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VARAPPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 17/06/2011 VALID UPTO 31/03/2012. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 10/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. AND THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT NO. C1-7265/11 DT.D 12/10/11 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:- EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE LOCALITY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.22108 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J It is submitted by Advocate Sri.T.Rajesh, appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent has no intention to cause any obstruction to the operation of the quarry by the petitioner. The intention of the 2nd respondent is only to pursue his legal remedies against the conduct of the quarry, which according to the 2nd respondent is not being conducted in a legal manner. We record the submission of the learned counsel and dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to afford adequate protection to the petitioner for the conduct of the quarry in case the 2nd respondent or anybody acting under the 2nd respondent obstructs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab