IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17626 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. VINCY ANDREWS, W/O.ANDREWS VARGHESE, NOW RESIDING AT JEEV.F.5, KANNATHU ESTATE, MAKAMKUNNU). 2. M.YOUSAF, S/O.UMMER RAVUTHAR, ELAMPARAMBIL, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. 3. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O.RAJAPPAN, PURAMPARA THADATHIL, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM, CHEENKAL THADOM P.O. 4. NARAYANAN NAIR, KAIMOOTTIL, MALAYALAPUZHA P.O. 5. ANIL.S., ELAMPLAKKAL HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA P.O. MEMBER, WARD 12, MALAYALAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 6. SUVARNAKUMARY, D/O.KARNAN, PATHISSERY, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ FOR R3-6 SRI.T.S.ABDUL VAHAB FOR R3-6 SRI.K.PRAVEEN BABU FOR R3-6 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 17626/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - A PHOTO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 14.4.08 BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 - PHOTO COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 9.6.08. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(a) - TRUE COPY OF PAPER REPORT APPEARED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 9.5.2008. EXT.R3(b) – TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 6.5.2008 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R3(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.5.2008 SUBMITTED TO THE D.M.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.R3(d) – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.5.2008 SUBMITTED TO THE MALAYALAPUZHA PANCHAYATH. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17626 OF 2008-W ----------------------------------------- Dated 24th June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first petitioner is the owner of an estate. The 2nd petitioner has entered into a contract with her for doing pineapple cultivation as an inter crop, pending raising of rubber plantation. When the 2nd petitioner went to the estate to start cultivation, the people of the locality under the leadership of respondents 3 to 6 obstructed. So, the petitioners filed Ext.P2 petition before the police, seeking necessary protection to carry out the agricultural operations. From Ext.P3 newspaper report the petitioners came to understand that the local people are obstructing, because they apprehend that in the pineapple cultivation the petitioners may use chemicals, which may be harmful to their health and well being. A protest meeting was held in the area, which was inaugurated by the local M.L.A and presided over by the local Panchayat Member. The petitioners submit, they have a right to cultivate in the area concerned and therefore, the police may be directed to WPC 17626/08 2 extend necessary protection. 2. The respondents 3 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit, opposing the prayers in the writ petition. They submit that the petitioners may use various chemicals, which may flow into the neighbouring stream, water from which is being used by the people of the locality for various purposes. It is also submitted that whenever the pineapple plants in an area are to be removed or destroyed after cultivation, it is a practice not to engage agricultural workers for the same, but instead spraying of chemicals similar to weedicides is done. Such chemicals will cause serious adverse consequences, as far as the environment of the area is concerned. Voicing their apprehension, they have moved various authorities, by filing representations. The newspapers have also reported about the motions made by the local people against the proposed cultivation. 3. If the local people oppose the cultivation on the ground that the agricultural practices followed by the petitioners may cause environmental degradation and their health will be affected, we think, this Court is not justified in sending the police to drive the protesting local inhabitants away. If the petitioners have got a legal right to cultivate, they can move the civil court for appropriate reliefs. The competing claim of the petitioners for cultivation and the claim of the local people for a clean environment, WPC 17626/08 3 flowing from their rights under Article 21 can be considered and appropriate orders can be passed by the civil court. See the decision of this Court in Thilakan v. C.I of Police [2008(1) KLT 141]. We notice that the police have no duty to adjudicate the dispute between the local people and the petitioners and based on their finding, grant protection to the petitioners. Therefore, we are not justified in asking the police to interfere in the matter. Since we are hearing a petition for mandamus, this Court is not justified in adjudicating the rival claims of the petitioners and the local people. The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for protection to their lives. If the petitioners go around attending their normal business, there is no threat to their life. Only when they attempt to cultivate pineapple, they are allegedly threatened. If the civil court passes an order in favour of the petitioners and even thereafter, they are threatened or obstructed, they can move the very same court for ordering police assistance, for enforcing its orders. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the competent civil WPC 17626/08 4 court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/