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 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33713 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.HARIDASAN, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS THAROL HOUSE, EKAROL, UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.I.OF POLICE, BALUSSERY 2. C.I.OF POLICE, BALUSSERY. 3. R.D.O., KOZHIKODE. 4. KARUNAKARAN, S/O.RAMAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 5. REMANI, W/O.KARUNAKARAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 6. DAMODARAN,S/O.KADUNGAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 7. SUMATHI,W/O.DAMODARAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 8. SUDEESH,S/O.DAMODARAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 9. VIPINLAL,S/O.VILASINI,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 10. CHANDRAN,S/O.RAMOTTY,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. WPC 33713/2008 11. SHAIJA,W/O.CHANDRAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 12. SUDHA, D/O.RAMOTTY,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 13. VALSALA,W/O.SREEDHARAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 14. BABU, S/O.MOOTHORAN,MALOORMMAL VEEDU IYYAD DESOM,SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,KOYILANDI TALUK. 15. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER FOR R4-14 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL – R1 TO R3 & R15 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33713/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 9.7.08 UNDER THE GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT AS PER THE KERALA MINE CONSTRUCTION RULES. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.12.2007 UNDER THE EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE ACT, 1884, ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES FOR THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, KOCHI UNDER THE EXPLOSIVE RULES, 1983 DATED 2.7.2008. EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR OPERATING THE QUARRY AT UNNIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 14.1.08. EXTS.P5(a) & P5(b) – A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTSISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR HAVING RECEIVED THE LICENCE FEES FOR THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS UPTO 2008-2009 BEYOND EXT.P4 DATED 11.1.08 AND 19.7.08 RESPECTIVELY. EXT.P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR CONDUCTING THE BLASTING OPERATIONS USING EXPLOSIVES UNDER THE INDIAN MINES ACT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLOSIVE ACT DATED 3.10.2007. EXT.P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE, ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.8.08. EXT.P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE OF THE OWNERSHIP AND A SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION AND SURVEY NUMBERS WITH THE VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SIVAPURAM DT. 7.7.08. EXTS.P9(a) & P9(b) – A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL PANCHAYAT DATED 11.1.08 AND 19.7.08 RESPECTIVELY. EXT.P10 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11.11.08. EXT.P11 – A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.11.08. EXT.P12 - A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR EXT.10 DATED NIL. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(1) – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GEOLOGIST DT.NIL. EXT.R4(2) – TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE GEOLOGIST DATED 14.11.2008. EXT.R4(3) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DT. NIL EXT.R4(4) – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RDO, KOZHIKODE DT. NIL WPC 33713/2008 EXT.R4(5) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECRETARY,UNNIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT. NIL. EXT.R4(6) - TRUJE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE DT. NIL. EXT.R4(7) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION DT. NIL. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 33713 OF 2008-L ----------------------------------------- Dated 10th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is running a granite quarry. He submits, he has got all the requisite clearances/permissions for the same. In support of that submission, he relies on Exts.P1 to P7. While so, respondents 4 to 14 , who are local people, came forward and started causing obstruction to the running of the quarry. So, the petitioner preferred Exts.P10 and P11 representations before the local police. Alleging that the police did not extend any helping hand, this writ petition is filed. In the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that the aforementioned party respondents are causing obstruction, demanding payment from him in the form of a commission. Since the petitioner is not ready to pay it, they are causing obstruction, it is submitted. 2. The respondents 4 to 14 have filed a counter affidavit, denying WPC 33713/08 2 the allegations of the petitioner. They say, they are residents of the locality, residing within a radius of 40 metres around the property of the petitioner. There is a water tank having a capacity of 25000 litres at a distance of 60 metres from the quarrying site. Owing to the blasting, the said water tank is in danger. It is the only source of drinking water to the people of the locality. The electricity line drawn near to the property where blasting operations are undertaken, is also in danger. The road used by the petitioner is a public road and because of lorry traffic with heavy loads, it is in a dilapidated condition. The party respondents do not admit the claim of the petitioner that he has got all the requisite licences. He is not doing the quarrying operations in accordance with the conditions contained in the permits obtained by him. So, they have moved various authorities, pointing out the illegal operation of the quarry done by the petitioner, by filing Exts.R4(1) to R4(7) representations. They emphatically deny the allegation of the petitioner that they are demanding commission from the petitioner. They say, they are only holding peaceful agitation against the illegal operation of the quarry, which is causing pollution in the area. WPC 33713/08 3 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dealing with the averments of respondents 4 to 14 and reiterating his contentions in the writ petition. 4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that several persons are residing within 100 metres of the property where blasting operation is going on. They are complaining about air, water and sound pollution caused by the functioning of the quarry. The people in the locality wanted to sell their properties and go away from the quarrying site. Though there was some negotiation between them and the petitioner regarding that, the deal did not materialise, submitted the learned Government Pleader. 5. From the pleadings before us, it is evident that the local people are agitated by the adverse effect of the quarrying done in the locality. Though the petitioner would submit that they are clamouring for a commission, we notice that the petitioner does not have any such allegation in his representations Exts.P10 and P11. So, the averment made concerning demand of commission for the first time in this writ petition lacks credence. WPC 33713/08 4 6. The petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on the business of running a quarry. The local people have a right to life, which includes the right to have a clean environment in the locality where they reside. If the local people complain that the petitioner's quarry is causing environmental degradation, the police have no duty to drive them away and stand guard for the quarry. If the petitioner feels that the local people are causing obstruction illegally, his remedy lies before the civil court. If the petitioner is able to get an injunction order against the local people and if they disobey it, he can move that court to render necessary assistance to enforce the order of the court. 7. Having regard to the disputed nature of facts, this Court is not justified in issuing any directions as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. But, this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take any action in accordance with law, if any WPC 33713/08 5 cognizable offence is reported. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/