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 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18961 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- THULASIDHARAN S., PROPRIETOR, SATHYAM QUARI, THANNICHAL, MOONNUMUKKU P.O., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, 'SATHYAS', KALLARA, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695608. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE SRI.ABHISHEK KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGOD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 4. SUKUMARAN PILLAI, CONVENOR, INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS, BHARATHANNOOR, PIN-695616. 5. BHASKARAN, CONVENER, AITUC, BHARATHANNUR, PIN-695616. 6. KALAMACHAL SASI, CONVENOR, CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION (CITU, BHARATHANNOOR, PIN-695616). 7. CHERUVALLI VIJAYAN, CONVENOR, BMS, BHARATHANNOOR, PIN-695616. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18961/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT WITH NO.CRPS/133/2010-11/139/DOT/ML/2011 DATED 7/2/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/TVM-DO/ICO(R1)QRY/416/2009 DATED24/10/09. EXT.P3: COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL) NO.A 17/97024/09. EXT.P4: COPY OF LICENSE NO.E/SC/KL/22/1186/9E 58063) DATED 5/4/11 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.B3/42/11-12 DATED 24/6/11 GRANTED BY THE PANGOD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P6: COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 9/7/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9/11/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 18961 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is conducting a Granite quarry within the limits of Pangod Grama Panchayat, which comes within the jurisdiction of respondent 2 to 3. According to the petitioner, the quarrying operation is being conducted after obtaining all the required permissions, consents and licences from various authorities. From Ext.P1 it is evident that there is a Quarrying Permit granted by the authorities of the Mining and Geology Department. Ext.P2 is the copy of the "Consent to Operate" issued from the State Pollution Control Board. Through Ext.P3, the Additional District Magistrate has issued no objection for the blasting operations, under the provisions of the Explosives Act and the relevant Rules made thereunder. Ext.P4 is the licence issued in favour of the petitioner under the Explosive Rules. Further it is stated that the quarrying operation is done on the basis of licence granted by the Pangod Grama Panchayat under WPC.No.18961/2011 2 Ext.P5. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the above permissions and licences, the quarrying operations conducted in a perfectly legal and authorised manner is being physically obstructed by respondents 4 to 7 demanding work in the querry or payment of compensation in lieu of such works. It is stated that, inspite of complaint submitted before the 2nd respondent, no effective action was taken by respondents 2 and 3 to remove such obstructions or to afford protection for the smooth conduct of the quarrying operations. Hence, the petitioner seeks necessary directions from this court. 3. Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 on the basis of instructions received from the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that, on receipt of Exts.P6 complaint the 2nd respondent had visited the spot and summoned respondents 4 to 7 to the Station House. They were warned not to create any physical obstruction in the conduct of the quarry. It is further stated that necessary steps will be taken if any physical obstruction is caused . 4. In spite of service of notice from this court, nobody WPC.No.18961/2011 3 enters appearance on behalf of the respondents 4 to 7. 5. We are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is conducting quarrying operation after obtaining all the required permissions, consents and licneces under the various statutes, then the respondents 4 to 7 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions, under the guise of demand for providing employment. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take effective steps, to remove obstructions if any caused to the petitioner and to afford protection for the conduct of the quarrying operations, provided the petitioner is conducting such operation on the basis of a valid permissions, licences and consents required under the different status. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk