IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21105 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOYCY BABU, W/O.BABU, AGED 39 YEARS, MULLAKATU PARAMBIL, P.O.KUZHUR, MALA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHUR-680001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION-680732. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION-680732. 4. RAMEEV RAJAN, NJALIYATH, KUZHUR-680734, MALA, TRICHUR. 5. BISNI SASI, NAISSERY, KUZHUR-680734, MALA, TRICHUR. 6. JENI, NELLISSERY, KUZHUR-680734, MALA, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R4,5,6 SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R4,5,6 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.21105 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner is a lady who is an entrepreneur of a small scale industry, established with the assistance from the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, engaged in manufacture of bottled drinking water. The petitioner is running the unit on the strength of Ext.P5 proceedings issued by the District Officer of the Ground Water Department, as well as on the basis of Ext.P6 licence issued by the Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the said licence was issued on the basis of no objections issued by the neighbouring residents as evident from Exts.P3 and P4. 2. It is stated that respondents 4 to 6 and certain other W. P. C. No.21105 of 2011 -2- persons claiming under them are creating obstructions to the working of the industrial unit. On 29/07/11 certain persons under leadership of respondents 4 to 6 have trespassed into the premises and caused heavy damage to the properties. They have restrained the petitioner and assaulted her, in a manner amounting to outraging modesty. It is also alleged that the petitioner was severely intimidated that they will do away with her life. It is evident that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner Ext.P7 criminal case was registered against respondents 4 to 6 and other persons who can be identified, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 294(b), 506(i), 341, 323, 354 read with Section 149 IPC. The said case is under investigation. 3. According to the petitioner, there is still constant threat against her life as well as against the life of her employees working in the industrial unit. It is alleged that respondents 4 to 6 are taking law into their own hands and W. P. C. No.21105 of 2011 -3- creating threats and intimidations. The petitioner apprehends that even they may attempt to destroy the entire unit. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P8 complaint before respondents 1 to 3, seeking police protection. Since no effective steps were taken, this Writ Petition is filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6, it is contended that Exts.P5 and P6 licences were issued without considering protest of the inhabitants of the locality. It is also contended that the No-Objection Certificates were not issued by any neighbouring residents, and Exts.P2 and P3 letters were obtained from persons who are not affected by the functioning of the industry. Allegation of the respondents is that the petitioner is working the unit in a manner extracting huge quantity of ground water on every day, even though in Ext.P5 the petitioner was permitted to extract only 10,000 litres of water per day, that too with intervals of minimum five hours. W. P. C. No.21105 of 2011 -4- The petitioner had established a motor with capacity of 6.5 HP and large quantity of water is being pumped out, for usage in the industry. It is the complaint of the respondent that such indiscriminate extraction of ground water is causing severe scarcity of water in the area, which was having water scarcity even otherwise. However, the respondent denied the allegation regarding the incident on 29/07/11. According to the respondents there are only coercing agitations against the indiscriminate extraction of drinking water and they have not violated the personal rights of the petitioner. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions raised on both sides, we are of the opinion that, as long as the petitioner is running the industrial unit on the strength of the licences obtained, respondents 4 to 6 or anybody claiming under them have no manner of right to create any physical obstruction or W. P. C. No.21105 of 2011 -5- damage or to cause any threat or intimidation to the life of the petitioner or her staff. If respondents 4 to 6 or any other neighbouring residents have got any complaint regarding scarcity of water due to the indiscriminate extraction in violation of the permissions, they have to approach the competent authorities. Needless to say that if any such complaint is received by the authorities of the Ground Water or the Panchayat authorities concerned, it is for such authorities to look into such complaints and to take necessary steps, if there is illegal functioning of the petitioner's unit. 6. From the evidence adduced through Ext.P7, we are convinced that there occurred an incidence of violence against the industry and also against the life and person of the petitioner as well as her staff. Under circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is obligatory on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that no such further violent W. P. C. No.21105 of 2011 -6- acts of threat being caused against the petitioner or against the working of the industrial unit. If any reliable information is received regarding any such apprehended threat, the respondents 2 and 3 should take immediate steps to avert any such situation. If there is any apprehended threat necessary protection should be afforded by respondents 2 and 3 for the life of the petitioner and her staff as well as for the smooth conduct of the industrial unit. 7. However, we make it clear that the protection given above will be subject to any further orders which may be issued by the competent authority regarding the permissions and licences for working of the industrial unit. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.21105 of 2011 -7-