IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14835 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,AGED 58 YEARS, G.K.QUARRY,KALLUVATHUKKAL, VILAVOOR KONAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX SRI.K.P.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. PRAKASH,S/O.MADHAVAN,AGED 40 YEARS, JYOTHI BHAVAN,VILAVOOR KONAM P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI,AGED 44 YEARS, RADHAKRISHNA MANDIRAM,VILAVOOR KONAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU KAMALASANAN - R1,2 SRI.PRATHEESH.P - R1,2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL - R3, R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14835/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE 22 EXPLOSIVE LICENSE BEARING NO.E/SC/KL/22/350(E 11833) DT. 19.4.07 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES TO PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE LICENSE DT. 2.4.07 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE RENEWAL LICENSE DT. 7.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO PETITIONER UP TO THE PERIOD 31.3.09. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE EXECUTED ON 23.1.06 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT. 30.6.05 EXECUTED. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 15.4.08. SEND BY PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 28.4.2008 SEND BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TEMPLE AND ITS PREMISES WHICH WAS SHOWN IN ONE OF THE NOTICES PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE TEMPLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE FESTIVAL IN THE YEAR 2008. EXT.R1(b):- COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF BLOCK 39 OF KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE. EXT.R19c):- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.5.07 IN WP(C) NO.14002/2007. EXT.R1(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 27.6.07 OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST. EXT.R1(e):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 5.2.2008 SHOWING THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE A.D.M. KOLLAM. EXT.R1(f):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF QUARRYING ON THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN SIDE OF THE TEMPLE. EXT.R1(g):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DT. 22.4.08. EXT.R1(h):- COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DT. 21.4.08. EXT.R1(i):- COPY OF THE MEWS PAPER REPORT WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ILLEGAL QUARRYING OF THE PETITIONER IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DT. 13.5.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 14835 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection for running a quarry in his property having an extent of 72.65 Ares in Survey No.359/2, 359/3, 359/15 in Block No.39 of Kalluvathukkall Village, Kollam District. According to him, he has got all the requisite statutory licences and permits for doing quarrying work in his property. Ext.P1 is the licence issued to him under the Explosive Rules for storing the requisite quantity of explosives. Ext.P3 is the current D & O licence issued by the local Grama Panchayath. Ext.P4 is the quarrying lease executed between the State Government and the petitioner in relation to the above property. Ext.P5 is the sale deed under which he obtained the WPC 14835/2008 -2- property wherein quarrying is undertaken. Respondents 1 and 2 are the office bearers of a committee managing a nearby temple. They started causing obstruction to the running of the quarry. Therefore, seeking protection against them, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 representation before the S.I.of Police which was followed by Ext.P7 representation before the Superintendent of Police,Kollam. Since the police did not extend any protection, this writ petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has obtained quarrying lease for his property, in which, there is no granite formation. On the strength of the quarrying lease, the petitioner is undertaking quarrying in the neighbouring Government land comprised in Re-survey No.360/4 of Kalluvathukkal village having an extent of 4.606 hectares. Against the said quarrying by the petitioner or persons under him, respondents 1 and 2 have moved this Court. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, action has been taken by the Geologist against unauthorized quarrying. The police have also prevented the unauthorized quarrying on the adjacent government land. But respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the police colluded with the WPC 14835/2008 -3- petitioner and the petitioner is unauthorisedly conducting the quarrying. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that both parties were summoned to the police station and the dispute between them has been settled and at present there is no law and order problem warranting interference by the police. The Learned Government Pleader also submitted that there is a temple within 50 metres of the quarrying pit. 4. Whether the petitioner is quarrying in the property covered by Ext.P4 or in the neighbouring land is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in this writ petition. The obtaining of quarrying lease and other licences etc. are statutory requirements for running a quarry. But while running it, the same may affect the rights of others in the locality. If they object on the ground that the quarrying affects their rights, the petitioner cannot take shelter behind the plea that he has got quarrying lease etc. Without the quarrying lease, the petitioner cannot do the quarrying in his property. But armed with a quarrying lease, he cannot do the quarrying affecting the rights of others in the neighbourhood. If persons in the locality are opposing, the police cannot adjudicate WPC 14835/2008 -4- the dispute and take decision on it and render protection to the petitioner. The petitioner has to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. In view of the above position, we are not justified in ordering any protection to the petitioner to do the quarrying work. This view taken by us is supported by the decision of this Court in Thilakan v. C.I. of Police, 2008(1) K.L.T.141 and also in Gem Granites v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2008(1)K.L.T. 937. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE