IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 32416 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ V.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.VAMADEVAN, ROHINI SADANAM, MELANCODE, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA ADV. SRI.R.S.MADHU ADV. SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UDAYAN, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, MELAMCODE, NEMOM P.O. 2. RAKESH K.G., VALIYAVILA MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, ANAMARAM VALICHA, MULLUVILA P.O. 3. C.SURENDRAN, PATTATHIL VEEDU, MELAMCODE, NEMOM P.O. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION, NEMOM P.O. *ADDL.R5 & R6: 5. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WP(C).No. 32416 of 2007(H) (*ADDL. R5 AND R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.11.2007 ON I.A.NO.14795 OF 2007.) *ADDL.R7 TO R9: 7. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, PALLICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*ADDL. R7 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.11.2007 ON I.A.NO. 15243 OF 2007.) BY ADV. SRI. SAJU.S.A BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI SALIM. P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32416 of 2007(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO. 1112-2597/11-03-1996 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE ON 23.08.2000. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 28.07.1997. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 22 LICENSE DATED 01.08.2001. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CRUSHER UNIT PERMIT DATED 15.12.2006 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN W.P.(C) 18536/07 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN W.P.(C)18536/07. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.10.2007 EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVES LICENSE. EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWAL ORDER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ................................................................................... W.P.(C) No. 32416 OF 2007 ................................................................................... Dated this the 25th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner is running a granite quarry and also a crusher unit. He claims that he got licence/clearance from all statutory authorities. While he was running the unit smoothly, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 , who are local goondas, demanding share of the profit from the business, obstructed quarrying operations and transporting of goods by vehicles illegally and unlawfully, it is alleged. Therefore, Ext.P11 representation was submitted before the Circle Inspector of Police, seeking protection from their unlawful activities. When the police did not extend any helping hand, this Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext. P11 and grant protection to the petitioner for running the petitioner's unit by name V.S.C. HOLLOW BRICKS.” 2. The material pleadings, seeking protection from the unlawful activities of respondent Nos.1 to 3 are contained in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition, which reads as follows: “While so, the respondents 1 to 3 who are neither head load workers nor members of any union and only local goondas wanted share of the profit from the business conducted by the petitioner and without any right or authority are obstructing the quarrying operations, transporting of vehicles and goods illegally and unlawfully. The respondents are not entitled to obstruct the running of the unit by the W.P.(C) No. 32416 OF 2007 2 petitioner as the unit is run by the petitioner after obtaining permissions and consent and licenses from all the concerned authorities.” The relevant averments against respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Ext. P11 is at paragraph 7, which is quoted below: “While so, the counter petitioners are obstructing the quarrying operations illegally, unlawfully and without any right or authority. The counter petitioners are not entitled to obstruct the running of the unit by the petitioner as the unit is run by the petitioner after obtaining permissions and consent and licenses from all the concerned authorities.” 3. The 4th respondent has filed a statement stating that Ext. P11 was received in the police station by post only on 18.10.2007. On enquiry, through the Sub Inspector of Police, it was found that the party respondent Nos.1 to 3 are petitioner's own people and that they are living far away from the quarry and they are not causing any obstruction, it is stated. The relevant portion of the statement reads as follows: “It is to be submitted that Ext.P11 complaint referred in the writ petition received in my station through post on 18.10.2007. The gist of the complaint was that the party respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition were obstructing the quarrying operation of the petitioner. It is to be submitted that there is no specific instances of obstruction in the complaint. However myself registered the petition as petition No. 223/DP/07/Cm and forwarded to the S.I., Nemom for enquiry and report. 3. The said petition was registered in the Nemom police station as Petition No. 304/DP/2007/NPS and enquired the matter. After enquiry the S.I. of Police, Nemom reported that the quarrying operations in the petitioner's unit is running without any obstruction from any corner. According to the petitioner, he is running quarry with all necessary permit and licences. None of the above permits W.P.(C) No. 32416 OF 2007 3 and licences were produced before me. The petitioner never preferred any complaint except Ext.P11 before me or the S.H.O., Nemom. As a part of enquiry, the S.H.O., summoned the party respondents 1 to 3 and their statement were recorded . On enquiry it is gathered that the respondents 1 to 3 were none other than the petitioners own people. The first respondent Udayan and the 3rd respondent Surendran were residing at Melancode in Nemom village, a place in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation which is about 6 Km away from the unit premises. The second respondent Rajendran is residing 10 Km away from the unit premises. Moreover that there is no complaint from any of the local people with regard to the operation of petitioner's unit. The petitioner preferred this writ petition with some ulterior motives. There is no situation warranting police protection to the petitioner. If there is any genuine threat to the petitioner's unit the petitioner could have approached the S.H.O. at the earliest. In this case the petitioner preferred complaint before me through post. According to me there is no threat to the petitioners unit. Moreover, it is to be further submitted that the respondents herein are the workers of the petitioner herein.” The 4th respondent also disputed the claim of the petitioner that he is having all statutory licences/clearance. 4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the allegation of the 4th respondent that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are his own men. 5. Going by the stand of the 4th respondent, if it is correct, the Writ Petition is an abuse of process of the court and the same has to be dismissed with compensatory cost. But in this Writ Petition, we cannot decide the disputed questions of fact. Further, having regard to the nature of the allegations made against respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner can get appropriate reliefs by moving the competent civil court. W.P.(C) No. 32416 OF 2007 4 The competent civil court has necessary powers to address the police also to enforce its orders. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other appropriate forums for appropriate reliefs. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk