IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17072 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH JOSE, AGED 46, S/O.M.M.JOSEPH, MANAMEL HOUSE, MADAPPALLY, MEMOOD P.O., CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 536. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY (HOME DEPT) SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKUDITHANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. JAMES JOHN, AGED 38, S/O.JOHN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MAMOODU P.O.-686 536, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. SIBY JOHN, AGED 48, S/O.JOHN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MAMOODU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 536. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R. BINDU. ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R4,5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE PHOTOSTATE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/6/11 OF SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P2 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7/6/10 OF VILLAGE OFFICE, MADAPPALLY. EXT.P3 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 31/5/11 OF VILLAGE OFFICE, MADAPPALLY. EXT.P4 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 31/5/10 OF VILLAGE OFFICE, MADAPPALLY. EXT.P5 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER DATED 30/5/2011 ISSUED BY JOSE.V.J. EXT.P6 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 27/5/2011. EXT.P7 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/6/2011. EXT.P8 - TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR DATED 30/6/11. EXT.P9- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SKETCH AND PLAN OF CONSTRUCTION. EXT.P10-TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5/7/11 OF PANCHAYAT FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. to Judge R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 17072 of 2011-H ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court for directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 2 and 3, police officials under the 1st respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioner against the illegal obstruction of respondents 4 and 5 when the petitioner undertakes the work under Ext.P1 permit granted to him by the Senior Geologist. 2. According to the petitioner, he has obtained Ext.P1 permit to undertake chemical blasting of granite in 1 Are of land. According to him, Ext.P1 has been issued after complying with all the necessary legal formalities. The petitioner is entitled to undertake the work. But respondents 4 and 5, who are local inhabitants, are raising untenable objections against undertaking the work strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 permit. It is, in these circumstances, that directions are sought under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. They contend that there is no bona fides for the petitioner in obtaining W.P.(c) No. 17072 of 2011 -: 2 :- Ext.P1 permit or in seeking directions under Art.226 of the Constitution now. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, first of all, raises a contention that building development permit, as insisted by the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, has not been obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner repels this contention with the submission that necessary application under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules has already been submitted and Ext.P10 acknowledgment has been obtained. 4. The fact remains that the requisite permit has not been obtained though application is shown to have been filed. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that no construction of building is possible by undertaking the blasting operations under Ext.P1. That is a very small area where no building can be constructed. The petitioner is not undertaking or proposing to undertake any construction there and according to respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner is only a builder trying to extract granite from the land in question. Respondents 4 and 5 have a further grievance that extraction is proposed to be done not from 1 Are; but from the entire property available. They have a further contention that blasting of rock is going to be done using explosives. 5. We do not think it necessary for us at this juncture to go W.P.(c) No. 17072 of 2011 -: 3 :- into the disputes raised. Admittedly, building development permit has not been obtained. The application for that has been made and it is expected that a decision will be taken on or before 6/8/2011. Without and before securing such building permit, we do not think it necessary to grant police protection. We make it clear that the dismissal of this petition now will not fetter the rights of either party to go to the civil court and seek appropriate directions. 6. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge