IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32316 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL SALAM, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.PERIYAR ASSOCIATES, KULANGATTUKUZHY, VETTAMPARA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-686691.(MAIN OFFICE AT KUNNATH BUILDINGS, CHANDAKKADAVU, ULIYANNOOR, ALUVA.) BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NISHAD (PUZHITHARA) SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM (RURAL) DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCNHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PINDIMANA.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686698. 4. V.S.BHASHEER, S/O.SAIDALAVI, VEDIPURAKKAL HOUSE, NARETH ESTATE, KULANGATTUKUZHY VETTAMPARA.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. P.A.RAJAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN,PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, KULANGATTUKUZHY,VETTAMPARA.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM FOR R4-5 SRI.K.N.ANILKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32316/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2: COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.IV(1) DT.04.06.2008, ADOPTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3: COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.IV(1) DT.16.7.08 ADOPTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3.515.08 DT.18.07.2008, ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.24.09.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5(b): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.24.09.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32316 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner, who is a native of Aluva, is proposing to establish a granite crusher unit at Kulangattukuzhi, Vettampara in Pindimana Grama Panchayat. He submits, he has got the necessary clearances from the Panchayat and Pollution Control Board for establishing the unit. But, respondents 4 and 5 and their supporters are causing obstruction. Therefore, he preferred Exts.P5(a) and P5(b) representations before the police. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that 50 families under the leadership of respondents 4 and 5 are opposing the establishment of the crusher unit, as the same is likely to cause pollution. The respondents 4 and 5 submitted, that crusher unit will cause W.P.(C) No.32316/2008 2 pollution in the neighbourhood and the neighbouring residents will be affected. 3. The petitioner points out that, as evident from Ext.P1 report of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, there are no persons residing within 250 metres of the site, where the crusher unit is proposed to be established. Therefore, the apprehensions of the local people are unfounded. 4. It is a notorious fact that a granite crusher unit will definitely cause pollution in the locality, where it is functioning. The petitioner may be able to run the unit only after getting consent from the Pollution Control Board. But, their consent can never be taken as a guarantee against pollution. We notice that in the Eloor Industrial Area, all the industrial units are run with the consent of the Pollution Control Board. But, those industries are polluting the air and water of that area, making the lives of the local people miserable. So, if the local people think that the unit proposed to be established by the petitioner will cause pollution and therefore they protest against it, the W.P.(C) No.32316/2008 3 same is not a dispute, which can be adjudicated by the police or by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter can be decided only by the civil court. The petitioner can move the civil court and seek appropriate orders against the persons, who are obstructing. In view of the above position, 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. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps W.P.(C) No.32316/2008 4