IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28847 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N. RAJEEV, PROPRIETOR - DEVI ROCK QUARRY, VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT RAJEEVAM, VELICHIKALA P.O., ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOLLAM-691 013. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 604. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 604. 4. SRI.SAJEEV, S/O. ANANDAN, PARAVILA THEKKATHIL VEEDU, WINE KOTTOOR, POLIKODE, VAYAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 312. 5. SRI.SANTHOSH, S/O. CHANDRAN PILLAI, AMBADI, POLIKODE, VAYAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 312. 6. SRI.SOJU, S/O. SOMAN, SOJU BHAVAN, POLIKODE, VAYAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 312. *ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED. 7. THE SENIOR ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 11.11.2011. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER. R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SRI.G.BIJU. ADDL. R7 BY ADV. M.K. CHANDRAMOHANDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING. W.P.C. NO. 28847/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2065/1/06 DTD. 19.7.2006. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2066/1/06 DTD. 19.7.06 IN FAVOUR OF SMT. INDULEKHA. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2099/1/06 DTD. 19.7.06 IN FAVOUR PETITIONER AND SMT. INDULEKHA. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 16.1.2010. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER TO THE UMMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD. 25.01.10. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE RENEWAL LICENCE DTD. 17.5.2010 WITH THE ORIGINAL LICENCE. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE SKETCH, POSSESSION CERTIFICATE, CONSENT LETTER AND NON LIABILITY CERTIFICATE. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DTD. 7.2.2011 AND THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF ROYALTY. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE LICENCE TO OPERATE THE QUARRY UPTO 31.3.2012 BY THE UMMANNOOR PANCHAYATH. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 17.10.2011. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 24.10.2011. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE SIX PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE QUARRY, THE BLOCKING OF WAY, THE LIE OF EXCAVATOR AND OTHER VEHICLES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE PN PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner who is the proprietor of Devi Rock Quarry established near Valakom, Kottarakkara has filed this Writ petition under Article 226 seeking directions for police protection against respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner alleges that with selfish motives the party respondents are obstructing the operation of the quarry. The party respondents are dealers in granite and other building materials and it is their demand that the entire product in the petitioner's quarry should be supplied to them. The petitioner is not in a position to accede to the above demand as he is bound by the terms of an agreement he has already entered into with Sri. Biju to supply his products to the above Biju. The Senior Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board was impleaded as additional 7th respondent. The party respondents are angry with the petitioner as the petitioner has not acceded to the request and demands. Therefore they are making all sorts of troubles. Because of this, the W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 : 2 : petitioner is unable to operate the quarry. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 6. In the counter affidavit, they denied the allegation that they have obstructed the working of the quarry. According to them, the local public are generally opposing the working of the quarry because of the pollution related problems. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is violating the conditions of consent issued by the Pollution Control Board and the permit issued by the geologists apart from violating the conditions in the licence issued by the local panchayat. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Subashchandra Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.Biju, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. We have heard Sri.M.K.Abookacker, senior Government Pleader and Sri. M.K. Chandra Mohan Das, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board. According to Sri. Subashchandra Bose, it is purely on selfish considerations that the party respondents are opposing the working of the quarry as well as transportation of granite W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 : 3 : stones from the quarry. None of the party respondents have filed any complaint before the authorities like the Geologist, Pollution Control Board and the Panchayat in issuing permit/consent/licence to the petitioner. The petitioner intends to operate the quarry in accordance with the terms and conditions of the consent/permit/licence. The petitioner has no objection in the statutory authorities monitoring the working of the quarry regularly. It is open to the statutory authorities to order stoppage of the quarry if it is noticed that any of the conditions are violated by the petitioner. The party respondents have no right to obstruct the operation of the quarry so long as the petitioner is operating the same strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. 4. Sri. Biju, learned counsel for the party respondents addressed submissions on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by them and submitted that the allegations levelled against the party respondents are without any basis. The party respondents have no selfish motives in the matter. In fact, it is not they who are physically obstructing the working W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 : 4 : of the quarry. It is the people of the locality in generally obstructing. Obstruction of the people of the locality is also justified. The petitioner is violating all the terms and conditions of the licence/permit/consent etc issued. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel to condition No.3 in Ext.P5 - no objection certificate issued by the District Medical Officer. Our attention was also drawn to the photographs produced by the petitioner himself. It was submitted that condition No.3 is yet to be complied with. It was submitted that though on the terms and consent issued by the Pollution Control Board quarry can be operated in a small area, the petitioner is conducting the quarry in an extensive area. This should not be done. Admittedly there is violation of the terms of the consent etc. 5. Learned Government Pleader Sri. Aboobacker submitted that the petitioner is residing within the limits of a particular police station and the crusher unit to which the petitioner is supplying is situated within the limits of another police station. It may cause practical difficulties if directions are issued to the same police station. There is W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 : 5 : some tension on account of the dispute, so submitted. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the bar. The petitioner has been issued requisite permit/licence/consent for conducting the quarry. He has Ext.P4 consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. He has Ext.P5 no objection certificate issued by the DMO. He has quarrying permit - Ext.P8 issued by the Geologist. He has Ext.P9 licence from the local panchayat apart from other permits and licence. So long as the petitioner is operating the quarry strictly in terms of the conditions incorporated in the permit and licence, the party respondents cannot justifiably obstruct the operation of the quarry. The contention of the party respondents as discernible from the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is violating the terms of Exts.P4,P5,P8 and P9 and that this should not be permitted. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is duty bound to comply with all the conditions incorporated in Ext.P4,P5,P8, P9 and other licences and permits on the strength of which he is conducting the quarry. We are of the view that incorporating appropriate W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 : 6 : safeguards in our judgment it can be ensured that the petitioner does not misuse the protection direction issued by this Court. As already indicated, if the petitioner is operating the quarry in accordance with the permit/consent/licence and party respondents are not entitled to obstruct. We are of the view that protection directions can be issued in the matter of quarrying and also in the matter of transportation of products of the quarry subject to conditions. Accordingly we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: 7. Additional 7th respondent will conduct fortnightly inspection of the petitioner's quarry for ensuring that the quarry is being operated strictly in obedience to the conditions incorporated in Ext.P4. If it reveals that quarrying operations are done on lands exceeding what is permitted under Ext.P4 or in any other conditions in Ext.P4 are violated, it is open to the additional 7th respondent to interdict the petitioner from operating the quarry. Similarly Senior Geologist, Mining and Geology Department, District Office , Kollam who has issued Ext.P8 will also conduct periodical inspections of the quarry for the purpose of W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 : 7 : ensuring that all the conditions in Ext.P8 are being obeyed by the petitioner. If it is revealed during the course of any of the inspections that any condition in Ext.P8 is violated, he is also competent to issue stop memo to the petitioner. The petitioner shall complete the concreting work of the pathway providing access to the quarry as stated under condition No.3 of Ext.P5 within a period of 10 days from today and he will convince the Geologist or the Senior Environmental Engineer, KPCB that concreting work of the pathway is completed. Subject to the issuance of stop memo by the Senior Geologist or the Pollution Control Board on the basis of the periodical inspections conducted by them, respondents 4 to 6 and persons under them are restrained from obstructing the petitioner in the matter of conducting quarry and transportation of products from the quarry. If such obstructions are reported to respondents 2 and 3, they will take prompt action and ensure that the obstructions are removed. But we make it clear that these directions will rule only subject to the orders which may be passed by the W.P.(C).NO.28847 OF 2011 : 8 : Geologist or the Senior Engineer of the Pollution Control Board on the basis of the inspection conducted pursuant to this judgment. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment as soon as he receives the same to the Senior Environment Engineer, Department of Mining and Geology, Kollam by registered post acknowledgment due so that directions in this judgment will be made known to the above Senior Geologist, who will be bound to comply with the directions despite the fact that he is not a party to the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl