IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38684 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.SASEENDRAN PILLAI,SREE RAMA VILASOM MEVANAKONAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL PO,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 601. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALLICKAL POLICE STATION, PAKALKURI P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 604. 3. R.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI CHANDAVILA VEEDU, PAKALKURI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 604. * ADDL 4TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED * ADDL.R4: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IS SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS ER ORDER DATED 20/1/2011. R1 & R2, ADDL.R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.38684/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENTS UNION DATED 28/8/2010. P2 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENTS UNION DATED 31/8/2010. P3 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTERS P3(A) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTERS P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 25/12/2010. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/12/2010. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.684/2004-05/596/M3/2004 DATED 18/1/2005 OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. P7 COPY OF THE QUARRYIG LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY THE GEOLOGIST AND THE PETITIONER DATED 9/2/2005. P8 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER PUBLISHED AS G.O.(P)NO.2/2008/ID DATED 2/1/2008. P9 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22/7/2009. P10 COPY OF THE CONSENT ALONG WITH THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 17/9/2009. P11 COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICR, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20/1/2010. P12 COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE SECRETARY, PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 30/1/2010. P13 COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVES LICENSE GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 31/3/2010. P14 COPY OF THE SHOT FIRER'S CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 14/6/2010. P15 COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 7/7/2010. sts WP(C)NO.38684/2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT'S WIFE BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLICKAL POLICE STATION. R3(B) COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED NIL R3(C) COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER FOR OBTAINING LICENSE TO RUN THE QUARRY. R3(D) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING ELECTRIC LINE, KAVU AND THE SPRING (THREE PHOTOGRAPHS) R3(E) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY MAINTAINED BY THE PALLICKAL VILLAGE OFFICE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38684 of 2010-I ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner to run a quarry in accordance with law as per the requisite permit/licence issued by the 4th respondent, the District Collector. 2. According to the petitioner, he has secured the required permit/licence to run the quarry. He has complied with all the requisite legal formalities. The 3rd respondent is an influential person of the locality. He makes untenable and unsustainable demands. He insisted that the quarry products must be sold for fixed reduced prices to the local inhabitants. He insisted that vehicles of the local persons alone should be employed for W.P.(C) No. 38684 of 2010 -: 2 :- transportation of the quarry products. He was restoring to wanton, highhanded, culpable and violent acts to prevent peaceful operation of the quarry by the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition. 3. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 are represented by the learned Government Pleader. The 3rd respondent is represented by his counsel. 4. Before this Court the 3rd respondent does not make the demand that the quarry products must be sold to the local public or that the local vehicles must be engaged for the transportation of the quarry products. He instead submits that running of the quarry is posing danger to the physical safety of the local people and also the ecological balance. In these circumstances, he prays that police protection may not be afforded to the petitioner. 5. The 4th respondent, who had issued the requisite permit to the petitioner to operate the quarry, was arrayed as a party later and was directed to file a statement. In the statement filed by him the District Collector has stated categorically that the operation of the quarry does not endanger ecology and environment. W.P.(C) No. 38684 of 2010 -: 3 :- 6. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the 3rd respondent has no legal right to take the law into his hands and object/obstruct the operation of the quarry. He does not now choose to take up the stand which, according to the petitioner, he had initially taken up to prevent and obstruct the running of the quarry. The objection raised is only non-conformity with the safeguards provided in the quarrying permit issued by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has stated categorically that he has no grievance that the quarry being run in violation of the conditions stipulated. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to an order of protection. 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the light of the fact that the 4th respondent does not raise any objection to the running of the quarry by the petitioner and inasmuch as the 4th respondent has no case that any safeguard insisted is not being observed, the police is willing to provide the requisite protection to the petitioner for the running of the quarry. 8. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) Respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to afford protection to the petitioner to enable him to run the quarry without any W.P.(C) No. 38684 of 2010 -: 4 :- obstruction/hindrance by the 3rd respondent or his men. 9. We make it clear that this order shall not in any way fetter the rights of the 3rd respondent and the local inhabitants to raise their grievances before the appropriate authorites/courts about the alleged running of the quarry without compliance with any specific stipulations/safeguards. The order of protection shall be subject to any such orders that may be passed by such authorities/courts. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge