IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10785 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- C.A. ABBAS, CHERODATH HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, SRI.P.K.NIJOY. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. T.A. IBRAHIMKUTTY, SON OF ABU, THANAYATH HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., PIN - 683 112. 4. U.A. MOITHEEN, SON OF ABDUL KHADER, ULLADATH HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 112. 5. K.M. SATHAR, SON OF MUSTHAPHA, KURUPPADY HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 112. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10785 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PERMISSION DATED 12/04/2010 GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO CONDUCT ORDINARY SAND MINING. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/03/2011 FILED BY PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:10785 OF 2011 W ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions under Art.226 to second respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner against illegal obstruction by respondents 3 to 5 to the activity pursued by him as permitted under Ext.P1. 2. Ext.P1 is the order issued by the District Collector under which petitioner is permitted to mine sand. According to the petitioner Ext.P1 has been issued in compliance with all the relevant provisions of the statute. Respondents 3 to 5 are adamantly obstructing the activity of the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1. They have no legal right to obstruct the mining. They are taking law into their hands and obstructing the petitioner. The petitioner shall carry out the mining strictly in compliance with the terms of Ext.P1 order. Appropriate directions may be issued prays learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Notice was given to the learned Govt. Pleader. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instruction submits that in the WPC 10785/2011 2 perception of respondents 1 and 2 also respondents 3 to 5 have no right to object to the activity undertaken by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1. Appropriate orders may be passed it is prayed. 4. Respondents 3 to 5 though served have not chosen to enter appearance. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We have perused Ext.P1. We have considered the submissions of the learned Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued in favour of the petitioner. 5. In the result; a) This petition is allowed. b) Second respondent is directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to undertake the activity permitted by Ext.P1 without any obstruction from respondents 3 to 5. c) We make it clear that the petitioner in order to be eligible for such protection must strictly comply with the terms of Ext.P1 order. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 10785/2011 3 WPC 10785/2011 4