IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21414 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARTIN KOTTACKAL S/O. LATE K.V. MATHEW, PROPRIETOR ARTS SINDIA, DEEPTHI GRAMAM, ANGAMALY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENNDENT OF POLICE PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANGAMALY 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANGAMALY. 4. P.P.PAUL, PAREKKADAN HOUSE DEEPTHI GRAMAM, ANGAMALY 683 572 5. K.D. JOSE KACHAPPILLY HOUSE,DEEPTHI GRAMAM, ANGAMALY 683 572 6. VARGHESE PANACHIRAMEL HOUSE,DEEPTHI GRAMAM ANGAMALY 683 572 7. A.T.SHIJO, AMBADAN HOUSE, DEEPTHI GRAMAM ANGAMALY 683 572 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R4-7 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 21414/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.12.1998. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 17.05.2007 OF THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2(a) - TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 8.10.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 21.06.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY DATED 5.7.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROFESSIONAL TAX RECEIPT DATD 16.2.2008. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.5.2008 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.7.08 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 21414 OF 2008-Y ----------------------------------------- Dated 17th September, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was running a Small Scale Industrial Unit. Recently, he has started production of Hollow Cement Bricks also in that unit. He has got all the necessary statutory clearances for running it. Ext.P3 is the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board for operating the unit. Though, on the complaint of the local people the Pollution Control Board directed the petitioner to stop the functioning of the unit, later, he was permitted to run it, subject to certain conditions, as evident from Ext.P8 communication. In the above background, the petitioner submits, he is entitled to run his unit. But, respondents 4 to 7 and their supporters trespassed into his unit and drove away his workmen. The petitioner is not permitted to go to his unit also, it is submitted. Pointing out these facts, he has filed Ext.P7 WPC 21414/08 2 representation before the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector of Police. But, no action has been taken by the police. Hence this writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The respondents 4 to 7 have filed a counter affidavit, contending, inter alia, that the functioning of the unit has caused cracks in the walls of the neighbouring houses. In the light of that submission, this Court directed the S.I of Police to enquire into the matter and submit a report before this Court. The said officer inspected the neighbouring houses and found that the cracks were old and that a railway line is passing through the neighbourhood of the houses. Further, it was found that the houses were constructed in reclaimed marshy land. Therefore, he is not in a position to say whether the cracks were caused by the functioning of the unit or for other reasons. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dealing with the averments in the counter affidavit of the party respondents. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Going by the materials on record, we prima facie feel that the petitioner is entitled to run his unit, subject, of course, to the right of the local people to pursue WPC 21414/08 3 the remedies available to them under law, to redress their grievances. So, if any obstruction is caused to the functioning of the unit, the petitioner may inform the 3rd respondent. In that event, the said respondent shall remove the obstruction. It is made clear that the prima facie observations made by us will not in any way affect the contentions of respondents 4 to 7, when they approach other forums to redress their grievances. The direction to grant police protection will be subject to any orders of the civil court or those of the statutory authorities. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/