IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26167 of 2008(M) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V. JOY, GOVT CONTRACTOR, KALLAPPARA HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., ALUVA -VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION. 4. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTRAOL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI -20. 5. PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MOOZHIKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. P.P. ABRAHAM, PARAMBY HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O., MAMPRA, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT. 7. P.A. BABU, PALISSERI HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O., MAMPRA, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT. 8. SHAJAN ANTONY, KINATTINGAL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O., MAMBRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 26167 of 2008(M) 2 ADDL.R9: P.P.PHILIP, AGED 63 S/O P.P.POULOSE, PARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMBRA P.O., PIN 680 308. ADDL.R10: JOBY KURIAN, S/O KURIAN, PAROKKAN HOUSE, MAMBRA, KARUKUTTY P.O. ADDL.R9 & R10 IMPLEADEDAS PER ORDER DATED 3.9.08 ON I.A.No.11586/08 IN W.P.(C)No.26167/08). BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 ADV.SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS FOR R4(SC- KSPCB) ADV. SRI.S.GOPINATHAN FOR R5 SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM FOR R5 SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ FOR R6 SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD FOR ADDL.R9 & 10 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 26167 of 2008(M) PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.1594/07 DATED 26.2.07 OF THE SUB REGISTRY, CHENGAMANAD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.1595/07 DATED 26.2.2007 OF THE SUB REGISTRY, CHENGAMANAD. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.4068/07 DATED 30.5.07 OF THE SUB REGISTERY, CHENGAMANAD. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH BEARING NO.PCB/RO-EKM/ICE (S)-CR 18/08 DATED 11.2.08 ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOC BEARING NO.A7/442/08 DATED 13.8.08 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOC BEARING NO.A2/3890/08 DATED 11.4.08 ISSUED FROM THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ENTREPRENEURS' MEMORANDUM FOR SETTING UP MICRO SMALL OR MEDIUM ENTERPRISE. EXT.P8: TRUE COPIES OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS BEARING NOS.4041479 DATED 5.4.08, 4041480 DATED 5.4.08 AND 4041596 DATED 8.4.08 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.3967/07 DATED 15.11.07 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.3968/07 DATED 15.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ATED 23.8.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 3, 2 AND 1. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.PCB/TAC/ST.CR.65/05 DATED 17.10.07 OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.8.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF 10 QUARRIES FUNCTIONING VERY CLOSE TO THE QUARRY BEING SET UP BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ORGANIZATION DATED 20.8.08. EXT.R9(B): TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SIGNED BY MORE THAN 350 PERSONS PREFERRED BEFORE THE COLLECTOR ON 25.8.08. EXT.R9(C): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.8.08 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO RDO, FORT KOCHI. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 26167 OF 2008 M ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is proposing to set up a stone crusher unit in Parakkadavu Village of Aluva Taluk. He and his wife own 9 acres of land in the said Village. He has obtained consent for establishing the unit from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board as evident from Exhibit P4. He has obtained Ext.P5 building permit for construction of the structure for housing the crusher unit, as also the office of the establishment. He submits, he has obtained NOC from the Assistant Divisional Fire Officer as per Exhibit P6. After obtaining all the necessary statutory clearances, when he started setting up the unit, the 6th respondent demanded Rs.5 lakhs from him. He threatened the petitioner that unless his demand is met, he will see that the setting up of the crusher unit is prevented by resort to legal and illegal means. When building materials were brought and unloaded in the work site, respondents 7 and 8 caused obstruction to the same demanding 'nottakkooli'. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P11 representation before respondents 1 to 3 seeking necessary protection W.P.(C)No.26167/08 -2- for setting up of the industry. 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that no representation has been received from the petitioner in the Angamaly Police Station. In the work site, there is only one Hittachi loader. The allegations of causing obstruction to the establishment to the crusher unit are unfounded. Anticipating objection to the same, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition, it is submitted. 3. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations against him. He submitted that he does not know the petitioner and therefore there is no question of any demand of money from him. It is a false allegation. He is a functionary to the Paristhithi Samrakshana Janakeeya Samithy which has filed a mass petition before the District Collector against the establishment of the crusher unit. He has also stated that respondents 7 and 8 are the people of the petitioner and they have been impleaded to get an order from this Court uncontested. He submits, the alleged blocking of vehicles on 22.8.2008 by respondents 7 and 8 who are men of the petitioner, is a cock and bull story. 4. Respondents 9 and 10 got themselves impleaded in this Writ Petition. They say they are the persons leading a public protest against the establishment of the crusher unit. They also reiterate that W.P.(C)No.26167/08 -3- respondents 7 and 8 are petitioner's own men and they have been impleaded with malicious intention. They say, because of the functioning of several quarries in the area, the environment of the Village has been considerably affected. The establishment of the crusher unit will further adversely affect it. They also say, the petitioner has not preferred any petition before the police. Averment of the petitioner to that effect is incorrect. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dealing with the averments of the party respondents. He has produced Exhibit P12 issued by the Pollution Control Board detailing the norms to be followed for establishment of crusher units. He submits, he is establishing the crusher unit in conformity with the same. He has also produced Exhibit P13 to show that he has filed the petition before the C.I. of Police, Angamaly. He has also produced Exhibit P14 site plan, which would show that there are 10 quarries in the neighbourhood. 6. We heard learned counsel on both sides. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 7th respondent is a driver and 8th respondent is a business man. So, the allegation that they have demanded 'noottakkooli' lacks credence. At any rate, it is a disputed question of fact. Going by Exhibit P11, the cause of action for approaching this Court is the obstruction of the vehicles on 22.8.2008 W.P.(C)No.26167/08 -4- demanding 'nottakkooli'. Going by the pleadings of the contesting respondents and the statement of the learned Government Pleader, we are not inclined to accept the version of the petitioner that the vehicles of the petitioner were obstructed by respondents 6, 7 and 8 demanding 'nottakkooli'. The other cause of action mentioned in Exhibit P11 representation is the demand of amount by the 6th respondent. The said respondent has denied that. The petitioner has not paid it also. Therefore, the police have no role in that matter. Having regard to the facts unfolded, we are of the view that the cause of action mentioned in Exhibit P11 is not sufficient to sustain this Writ Petition, seeking a writ of mandamus against the police. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn