IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 14135 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. COCHIN BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LIMITED, GAMMON HOUSE, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICER IN CHARGE MR.KPM NAIR. 2. MR.KPM NAIR, OFFICER IN-CHARGE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, NEW MATTANCHERRY BRIDGE THOPPUMPADY P.O., KOCHI-682 005. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.NITHIN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KADAVANTHARA, P.B.NO.2012, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.GEORGE VALLARALI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM-682 018. svs .............2/-..... ...2... WPC. NO.14135/2011 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUSBA POLICE STATION, PALLURUTHY NADA, KOCHI-682 006. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682 005. 6. B.O.T. VIRUDHA CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, G.P.SIVANKUTTY, KOCHIN CHANEL VISION REPORTER, NEAR T.D.SCHOOL. CHERLAI, MATTNACHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002. 7. G.P. SIVANKUTTY, CONVENER, B.O.T VIRUDHA CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE. KOCHIN CHANEL VISION REPORTER, NEAR T.D.SCHOOL, CHERLAI, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002. R1 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER(REVENUE) SRI.P.K.SOYUZ R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, GCDA R3 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6-7 BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HARNIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 14135/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED MAY 7, 2011. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED MAY 12, 2011. P3: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 12/05/2011. P4: COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED MAY 14, 2011. P5: COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 05/05/2011. P5(a):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER DATED 07/05/2011. P5(b):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 07/05/2011. P5(c):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 13/05/2011. P5(d):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 13/05/2011. P5(e):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER DATED 13/05/2011. P5(f):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER DATED 17/05/2011. P5(g):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN THE INTERNET EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE WEBSITE DATED 13/05/2011. P5(h):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN THE INTERNET DECCAN CHRONICLE WEBSITE DATED 13/05/2011. P5(i):COPY OF THE DEMONSTRATION NEWS PUBLISHED IN THE INTERNET HINDU WEBSITE DATED 12/05/2011. svs .........2/-... ...2... WPC. NO.14135/2011 P6: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED MAY 21, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. P6(a):COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED MAY 26, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. P6(b):COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED MAY 27, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. P6(c):COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED JUNE 4, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. P6(d):COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED JUNE 6, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. P6(e):COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED JUNE 11, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. P6(f):COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED JUNE 11, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. P6(g):COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONERS DATED JUNE 13, 2011, PROVIDED THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 WITH THE VEHICLE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT HAVE PASSED OVER THE PROJECT BRIDGE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF USER FEE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.14135 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This writ petition under Article 226 has been instituted by M/s. Cochin Bridge Infrastructure Company Limited and one Mr.KPM Nair, Officer-in-charge of the first petitioner company seeking directions to afford adequate and effective police protection for the lives of the employees of the first petitioner and the members of the public and for preservation of the property of the first petitioner and to ensure that the petitioners are not prevented from conducting operations on the project bridge (New Mattanchery B.O.T project) including collection of user fees and to further ensure that there is no obstruction to the free movement of vehicles on the project bridge. Further directions including a direction to the police officer concerned to ensure that the law and order is strictly maintained in the periphery of the project Bridge and for the smooth functioning of the project bridge are sought for. The allegation is that due to agitations lodged by respondents 6 and 7, the smooth operation WPC.No.14135/2011 2 of collection of toll which is due to the 1st petitioner has become impossible. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the first respondent State, the 2nd respondent Secretary-Greater Cochin Development Authority and also by the 3rd & 4th respondents - the commissioner of Police as well as the Circle Inspector of Police respectively. 3. Adv.Musthaffa Doctor learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew our attention to the interim order dated 16/6/2011 issued by this court under which this court directed respondents 3 to 5 to afford police protection to the petitioners against any obstruction to traffic or obstruction against collection of toll by the petitioners by any one including respondents 6 and 7 till the next date of posting and clarified that the necessary assistance will be given by the police to the petitioners in the matter of collection of toll in accordance with law. The learned counsel submitted that the above interim order is in currency and but for that interim order the petitioners would not have been able to collect toll and to operate the project peacefully. The learned counsel requested that it will suffice if the above WPC.No.14135/2011 3 interim order is made absolute. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter affidavit dated 4/8/2011 filed on behalf of the State and submitted that the State has even referred to the provisions of 16 and 18 (3) of the Kerala Road Fund Act 2001 and clause 10-1(xi) of the concession agreement , which provides that it will be the obligation of the GCDA, Government of Kerala and Police Department to assist the petitioner company as and when required. 4. We enquired of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 as to whether they are having any objection to the interim order being confirmed. Response was that respondents 6 and 7 have only conducted very peaceful agitation and they do not intend to obstruct the collection of tolls by using force. 5. Sri. P.K.Soyuz the Special Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the Government and the Police Officers will be ready and willing to offer protection and assistance as and when specific request in that regard is made by the petitioners. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted WPC.No.14135/2011 4 that direction for continuance posting of police personnel even when the situation does not warrant the same will be unnecessary. The learned counsel for GCDA would endorse the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader. In reply, Mr. Musthaffa Rawther learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that unless the interim order is confirmed, there is likelihood of the problems recurring every now and then. 6. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having gone through the pleadings raised by the parties, we are of the view that it will suffice if the interim order dated 16/6/2011 is confirmed. Accordingly, we confirm the above interim order. We clarify the same further and say that as and when specific requests are made by the petitioners for rendition of police protection or assistance in the matter of collection of toll, the respondents 3,4 and 5 will be bound to render police protection and assistance to the petitioners in terms of the interim order which we have confirmed. We clarify further that this judgment confirming the above interim order will not cause any prejudice to the claims and contention of any of the parties to this proceedings in other WPC.No.14135/2011 5 proceedings which are pending between them including the arbitration proceedings presently pending. It is also clarified that this judgment will not preclude respondents 6 and 7 from conducting peaceful agitation in a manner as not conflicting with the relief that is given to the petitioners under this judgment and without violating the provisions of any law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk