IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12576 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRASANNAN NAIR, S/O.KARUNAKARA KURUP, AGED 52 YEARS, PERUMATTATHIL, KALLIMEL SREENILAYAM, KARUVATTA NORTH P.O., ALAPUZHA DISTRICT-690 554. BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN, SMT.M.J.RAJASREE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA- 690 514. 2. KERALA STATE KARSHAKA TOYILALI UNION (CPM), KARUVATTA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SADAN, MUNDAKACHIRA, KARUVATTA, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT-690 517. 3. SIVAN, AKKANDEPARAMBIL, KARUVATTA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 554. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12576/2011-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 18/04/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.12576 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent No.1 against illegal obstructions raised by respondents 2 and 3 to the very legal and lawful activity undertaken by him of raising an interim crop of fish in his paddy land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled in law to undertake the activity of fish farming in the paddy land belonging to him as an intermediate crop. Respondents 2 and 3 have no right to raise objections against such fish farming in the property of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 are causing illegal obstructions. The police are guilty of inaction though complaints were made to the police. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming police protection. W.P.(C).NO.12576 OF 2011 : 2 : 2. Respondents 2 and 3 though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. We in these circumstances wanted the learned Government Pleader to take detailed instructions and make submissions. 3. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that there is no illegal threat or obstruction to the proposed activity of the petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner is entitled to undertake fish farming in his paddy land and such activity may not offend the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act and Rules. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that there is an attempt to put up bunds and that, according to the learned Government Pleader, is impermissible without the permission of the Puncha officer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the petitioner does not intend to undertake any further activity of constructing bunds. No such further action is necessary. In these circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 have no right to raise objections, submits the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C).NO.12576 OF 2011 : 3 : 5. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that, if no further construction of the bund is undertaken by the petitioner, the police shall afford necessary protection to him. This is without prejudice to the power, right and duty of the concerned official to take action, if any, necessary against the objectionable construction of bund, if any, has already taken place. Such action will have to be taken strictly in accordance with law giving the petitioner all rights to be heard and to substantiate his contentions. The leaned Government Pleader submits that in these circumstances there is no necessity to issue any further direction to the police. The petitioner shall be given adequate and sufficient protection to carry on his activity of intermediate fish farming in his property, provided he does not undertake any further construction of the bund. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge cl