IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8890 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.M. ABOOBACKER, S/O. ALAVI, AGED 51, PALAKKAL MEETHAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT : ------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND STATIION HOUSE OFFICER, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE (RURAL) 2. AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. MAYINKUTTY, ORUVINGAL ALLY.P.O, THEKKUMKUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. RAJAN, S/O. SANKUTTY NAIR, OTHAYANMANGALATH, ALLY.P.O, THEKKUMKUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. KOYAKKUTTY, KAKKERI, ALLY.P.O, THEKUMKUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. GEORGEKUTTY, S/O. MATHAI, KAKKANATTU, ALLY.P.O, THEKKUMKUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. BIJU, S/O. AUGUSTINE PANACKAPPALLY, ALLY.P.O, THEKKUMKUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT w.p.(c)no.8890/2009 2 7. JOY, S/O. JOSEPH, KUTTIKOMBIL ALLY, THEKKUMKUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. GANGADHARAN, S/O. UNNIRI, ILLIKKARADI, ALLY, THEKKUMKUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: w.p.(c)no.8890/2009 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF SHOT FIRERS PERMIT UNDER RULE 114 OF EXPLOSIVE RULES. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF PERMISSION DTD.27.9.2004 FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVES FORM THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM 22 LICENCE DATED 23.4.2008 VALID UPTO 31.3.2010. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DTD.2.2.2009 FROM KARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DTD.1.12.2008 VALID UPTO 30.11.2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF CONSETN DTD.10.2.2009 ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.23.1.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. ================================== W.P.(C)No.8890 of 2009 ================================== Dated this the 2nd day of April 2009. JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, he has been conducting granite quarry after obtaining valid licence (Exts.P1 to P7). He was doing quarrying operation in accordance with the licence conditions. He is engaging his own workmen. Hence, no other workmen is required for the work. Respondents 2 to 8 demands work and as the petitioner is not acceding to such demand, respondents 2 to 8 are causing physical obstruction to lawful conduct of the quarry. Police protection sought for, but not granted. Hence this writ petition. 2. Notice was served by special messenger. Service complete. None appears. 3. The learned Government Pleader was heard in the matter. According to the Government Pleader, after agreeing for sale of an extent of 50 cents of W.P.(C)No.8890/2009 -:2:- land to the eighth respondent, the petitioner was not executed any sale deed and some civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and the eighth respondent. But there is no physical obstruction or threat caused by the eighth respondent, as alleged by the petitioner. Though some apprehensions are expressed by some of the respondents that the quarrying operation if proceeded with may lead to some lands lading, probably, this must be the reason, if at all, any objection is raised by respondents 2 to 8. 4. So long as quarrying operation is done based on the licence issued and in the absence of any prohibitory orders issued by the statutory authority or any competent court of law, physical obstruction of whatsoever in nature cannot be permitted. Anybody having any objection to the quarrying operation being conducted, can seek redressel of their grievances in a legal manner either by approaching the statutory authority for granting the licence or by approaching the civil W.P.(C)No.8890/2009 -:3:- court, without prejudice to such right. However, if the party respondents resort to any peaceful agitation, that cannot be interfered with. In the light of what has been stated above, in case there is any physical obstruction caused by respondents 2 to 8, the police will give necessary protection and remove such obstruction provided the petitioner is carrying on the business in accordance with the conditions. P.R.Raman, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. css/