IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22677 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.K.SASIDHARAN NAIR,PERUMCHIRAYIL HOUSE MANNADI P.O., KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, ADUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS SRI.DENNING K.BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATHANAMTHITTA 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ADUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATH ADUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 4. SOMARAJAN, CHARUVILAYIL HOUSE (PRESENTLY KANNANKARA VADAKKETHIL) ENATH P.O., ADUR, PATHANAMTHITTA 5. UNNI, PALATHADATHIL HOUSE ENATH VILLAGE AND P.O., ADUR, PATHANAMTHITTA 6. UNNI, PARAVILAYIL HOUSE ENATH VILLAGE, KAITHAPPARAMBU P.O., ADUR, PATHANAMTHITTA 7. MANIYAN, LOADING WORKER, C/O.UMMAR OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KL-2 C-5157 VADAKKEDATH KAVU, P.O..ADUR, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ FOR R4 TO 7 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 22677/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND HIS MOTHER FOR SECURING QUARRYING PERMIT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, AND ITS ENCLOSURES. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED FOR BLASTING OPERATIONS. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH M/S. KAYIKKARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR SUPPLY OF GRANITE STONES. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR TSUNAMI RAHABILITATION WORKS EXECUTED WITH THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED WITH A. IBRAHIMKUTTY FOR SUPPLY OF GRANITE STONES FOR TSUNAMI WORKS. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14660/2008 OF THIS HON. COURT, GRANTING POLICE PROTECTION. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 5O 3, SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION. EXT.P9 - TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STONE QUARRY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT BEARING NO.L8J8685 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE JACK HAMMER PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE PHOTO COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.5.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND HIS ORDER THEREON. EXT.R4(b) - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21.05.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R4(c) – TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 26.3.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 22677 OF 2008-Y ----------------------------------------- Dated 7th August, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a granite stone quarry in Sy.No.179/15 of Enath Village. Ext.P2 is the quarrying permit granted to him by the competent authority. He has employed a shot firer, who has got the requisite licence under the Explosives Rules. He has entered into various contracts for supply of big boulders. But, when he attempted to continue the blasting operation, which he was doing for quite some time, using the very same equipments and explosives, the respondents 4 to 7 and others started causing obstruction. Therefore, he filed Ext.P8 representation before the District Superintendent of Police, claiming protection for continuing the quarrying operation. Copies of that petition were sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the C.I of Police and the S.I of Police concerned. Ext.P9 is the photograph of WPC 22677/08 2 the quarrying site. Alleging that the police have not taken any effective action on his petition for protection, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The respondents 4 to 7 have filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to them, till recently, the petitioner was doing the blasting, using ordinary gun powder and small boulders were extracted. Now, he started using mechanical devices and highly explosive substances for doing the blasting. Because of the blasting, the persons in the neighbourhood cannot live in peace. The sound and tremor of the blasting are interfering with their peaceful life. The boulders thrown out by explosion are a threat to their life and that of their cattle. So, they have preferred Ext.R4(a) petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer and other statutory authorities. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted protection for doing blasting, the same will affect their right to life. So, they pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, denying the contentions of the party respondents. According to him, the signatories WPC 22677/08 3 to Ext.R4(a) petition are not living anywhere near the quarry. The nearest resident is residing at a distance of more than 500 metres. Some of them are residing at far off places. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned with the failure of duty from the part of the police. As in a suit, we cannot adjudicate the factual disputes between the parties, enter a finding and thereafter ask the police to grant protection to one party or the other. Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not confer any power on us to adjudicate private disputes between the parties and enforce our decision using the police. We notice that none of the statutes authorises the police to adjudicate the dispute raised by the party respondents against the quarrying done by the petitioner. The proper forum for it is the competent civil court. If the civil court finds that the allegations of the party respondents are unfounded, the court can injunct them from causing obstruction. The civil court can also address the police to enforce its orders. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner WPC 22677/08 4 and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/