IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25569 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------------- VINOY T.S,SON OF SEBASTIAN, THEKKUMTHALA HOUSE,MADATHUMPADY P.O., THRISUUR DISTRICT,KERALA PIN 680 733. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE,AYYATHOL, THRISSUR PIN 680 001. 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION,MALA, THRISSUR PIN 680 732. 3. DAISY THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS T.A, THEKKUMTHALA HOUSE,MADATHUMPADY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,KERALA PIN 680 733. 4. THOMAS T.A, THEKKUMTHALA HOUSE,MADATHUMPADY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,KERALA PIN 680 733. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 25569 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT NO.1/10-11/MM/QP/LS/281/C2/TDO/11 DATED 7-3-2011 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST,THRISSUR. EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.85/2010/ID DATED 5-4-2010 ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-08-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 07-05-2007 REGISTERED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE OFFENCE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30-05-2007 IN WPC NO.16370/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT THE TIME OF INCIDENT SHOWING THE 3RD RESPONDENT BLOCKING THE ROAD LEADING TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BY USING THE PANCHAYAT VEHICLE. EXT.P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23-09-02011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE STU ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25569 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Although notice to the respondents was served by special messenger there is no appearance on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner is the owner of 85 cents of land in Sy.No.165/3 of Poyya Village, Kodungallur Taluk. He wanted to level the land and for that purpose, obtained a permit from the Geologist, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P1. It appears that he was prevented from removing soil and thereupon he made an application to the first respondent. The first respondent obtained a report from the Tahsildar Kodungallur and passed Ext.P3 order permitting removal of red earth. 3. On the strength of Exts.P1 and P3, petitioner resumed the work of removal of red soil on 23.9.11. In the afternoon of the same day, the 3rd respondent who is the W.P.(C) No. 25569 OF 2011 :2 : President of the Poyya Grama Panchayat, came to the site and blocked the road leading to the petitioner's property and prevented the petitioner from removing the red earth, using the official vehicle of the Panchayat. This according to the petitioner is on account of certain family disputes between the parties. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent. Though the 2nd respondent came to the scene, no help was given as a result of which petitioner could not remove red earth on the strength of Exts.P1 and P3. It is in view of the above this writ petition has been filed seeking interalia a direction against the 2nd respondent to take action against respondents 3 and 4 and to enable the petitioner to remove red earth on the strength of Exts.P1 and P3 referred to above. 4. In so far as the 4th respondent is concerned there is no specific allegations involving him and hence no relief can be granted. W.P.(C) No. 25569 OF 2011 :3 : 5. However as far as the 3rd respondent is concerned there are specific allegations against her as noticed above. It has been confirmed by the 2nd respondent also in the counter affidavit filed, the relevant portion of which is extracted here for reference. “When the mining started first the soil could not be removed due to heavy rain. Again he started removal of red earth on 23/09/2011. Then the third respondent, Poyya Grama Panchayath President came to the site by office vehicle and told him to stop the removing of the red soil. I went to the said place as got information about the dispute going on there when I reached the spot I could see Poyya Panchayath President and its official vehicle there. Though the petitioner has obtained necessary sanction and permit from the RDO to mine and remove red-earth, the 3rd respondent has blocked the road leading to the petitioner's property by using the official vehicle of the Panchayath. In order to avoid a provocative situation I have strictly instructed the petitioner to stop the removal of soil from the upper lair, and directed the W.P.(C) No. 25569 OF 2011 :4 : petitioner to approach the court.” “On enquiry it could under stand that there is no violation of any of the conditions prescribed by the RDO. No one has objected except Panchayath president in mining and removal of red soil from the petitioner's land. Poyya Panchayath president using the official vehicle came to the petitioner's land and deliberately prevented the petitioner by blocking the road to show personal and family grudge to the petitioner and thereby to stop his mining his land for making it cultivable. The 4th respondent was also present in and around the area to see that the petitioner's activity is prevented. It is submitted that this respondent has not done anything illegal. However since the objector is none other than the Panchayath President, this respondent could not do anything even though the petitioner was in possession of necessary sanction for removing the red earth. Hence it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pass appropriate orders in the matter.” 6. In my view the facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent discloses not only the W.P.(C) No. 25569 OF 2011 :5 : sad state of affairs, but also the dereliction of statutory duties on his part. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the land and he has already obtained necessary permits for removal of red earth from his property. That lawful activity of the petitioner has been prevented by the 3rd respondent using official vehicle and the Sub Inspector of Police who has to provide adequate protection, has instead, directed the petitioner to stop his lawful activity. In my view in stead of having exhibited such a helpless attitude, the 2nd respondent ought to have taken appropriate lawful action to prevent the 3rd respondent from continuing the illegal obstruction. 7. Since on facts it is proved that the petitioner is entitled to remove red soil, the 2nd respondent is directed to ensure that the petitioner is enabled to remove the red soil on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2. In case if there is any obstruction caused by 3rd respondent or anybody else W.P.(C) No. 25569 OF 2011 :6 : for that matter, it will be the duty of the 2nd respondent to remove such obstructions by taking appropriate action as is warranted in law. 8. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent thereupon shall take necessary and adequate steps for carrying out the aforesaid directions in the judgment. 9. Although the attitude as disclosed by the 2nd respondent warrants at least a disciplinary action against him, still accepting the submissions made by the Government Pleader, I leave the matter at that. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge