IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16327 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, AKALOOR DESOM, PEROOR PANCHAYATH, LEKKIDI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, OTTAPPALAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, OTTAPPALAM. 5. RATHEESH, S/O.KRISHNAN, PALAKKAL, AKALOOR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. 6. SURESH, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, MOOCHIKAL, AKALOOR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. 7. SANTHOSH, S/O.BALAN, KUTTAKALATHIL, AKALOOR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. 8. SATHEESH, S/O.CHANDU, PALLATHOLKATTIL, AKALOOR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. WPC 16327/08 9. SANEESH, S/O.CHANDU, PALLATHOLKATTIL, AKALOOR P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R8 & R9 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 16327/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.59/08 DATED 5.5.2008. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.5.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENCE NO.59/08 DATED 5.5.2008 ISSUED TO THE LEKKIDY PEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R8(a) - TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 23.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. EXT.R8(b) – TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATD 23.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. EXT.R8(c) – TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 23.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM. EXT.R8(d) – TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 23.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 16327 OF 2008-R ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a poultry farm in Lekkidy Peroor Grama Panchayat. He is having necessary licence from the Grama Panchayat, it is submitted. But, of late, respondents 5 to 9 and their supporters have started causing obstruction to the running of the farm, alleging that the same is causing pollution in the locality. The petitioner submits, the said allegation is unfounded and has been made without any basis. On 19.5.2008 when chicks were brought to the petitioner's farm, the vehicle was obstructed by the party respondents and their supporters. So, those chicks were sent back. In view of the obstruction, the petitioner is not able to run the farm. So, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur, seeking necessary protection. Alleging that the police did not WPC 16327/2008 2 take any action, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the farm is causing acute pollution in the area. The local people cannot live there because of the foul smell emanating from the farm and also the pollution caused by it. So, they have preferred representations before the District Collector, Pollution Control Board, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, requesting to stop the functioning of the farm, it is submitted. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, denying the allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the 8th respondent. 3. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents also. The petitioner has got a fundamental right to run any business in his property, after obtaining licence. But, it cannot be run in a manner, causing pollution in the neighbourhood. Right to have a clean environment is now treated as part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So, if the petitioner's farm is causing pollution, the local people should be conceded freedom to protest against the same. But, the petitioner WPC 16327/2008 3 asserts in his reply affidavit that no pollution is caused, as alleged by the party respondents. This is a disputed question, which cannot be adjudicated by the police and thereafter take a decision regarding rendering protection based on their finding. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned with the breach of duty from the part of the police. Therefore, this Court is not justified in adjudicating the issue. The petitioner has to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs.. If the civil court is satisfied that the petitioner's unit is not causing any pollution, it can injunct the obstructors. The said court can address the police also, to render necessary assistance to enforce its orders. In view of the above position, this Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Nm/