IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11075 of 2011(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, COCHIN LPG IMPORT TERMINAL INDANE MOUND, NEAR VYPIN LIGHT HOUSE, PUDUVYPU P.O., KOCHI - 682 508, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LPG ENGINEERING) & PROJECT IN-CHARGE MR.MOHAN B.NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL DISTRICT, ALUVA - 683101. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL, KOCHI - 682505. 3. THE ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MALIPPURAM P.O., - 682 511, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. JAYAGHOSH M.B., CHAIRMAN, LPG TERMINAL VIRUDHA JANAKEEYA SAMARA SAMITHI MARAKKARPARAMBIL, MALIPPURAM P.O., - 682 511, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. C.R.SHIJAN, CONVENER, LPG TERMINAL VIRUDHA JANAKEEYA SAMARA SAMITHI CHIRAMMAL HOUSE, PUDUVYPU P.O., - 682 508 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL FOR R4 & 5 SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE FOR R4 & 5 SRI. SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, & V.K. MOHANAN, J.J ....................................... W.P.(C) No. 11075 of 2011 ........................................ Dated: 06-05-2011 JUDGMENT V. Ramkumar, J. The Writ Petitioner which is a Government of India Company, seeks police protection alleging obstruction of its activities at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 who represent a section of the local public formed to resist the proposed setting up of the L.P.G. Terminal by the petitioner at Puthuvypeen. 2. The main dispute is as to whether permission of the 3rd respondent Panchayat is necessary under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules for undertaking constructions in the 15 hectars of land owned by the Cochin Port Trust and taken on lease by the petitioner for a period of 30 years for W.P.(C) No. 11075 of 2011 -:2:- setting up the L.P.G. Terminal . The aforesaid dispute is pending consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 24256/2010 filed by the petitioner. In the said Writ Petition the stop memo issued by the 3rd respondent Panchayath is under challenge . The petitioner has secured a stay of operation of the said stop memo in the said Writ Petition. In an earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner as W.P. (C ) 22902 of 2010 seeking police protection, a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 2-2-2011 granted police protection to the petitioner for the limited purpose of completing the compound wall in the site proposed for the project at Puthuvypin, and that too subject to the result of W.P. (C) 24256 /2010 and making it clear that in case the verdict in W.P. (C ) 24256 of 2010 goes against the petitioner then the petitioner will have to demolish the construction or seek regularisation of the same. W.P.(C) No. 11075 of 2011 -:3:- There was also a direction to get W.P. (C ) 24256 /2010 disposed of expeditiously by getting the same posted out of turn for final hearing. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of earnest efforts by the petitioner the above Writ Petition could not be finally heard by the single Judge before the closure of the Court for midsummer holidays and while so, the obstructions at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 has been intensified warranting adequate police protection . Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5. 4. According to the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayath, the petitioner who is a lessee of the Cochin Port Trust cannot claim any immunity from the Building Rules on the ground that the activity carried on by the lessee is a Major Port W.P.(C) No. 11075 of 2011 -:4:- activity. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 contended that besides the compound wall many other structures have been put up by the petitioner without complying with any of the statutory formalities and that no safety measures were taken. 5. According to the petitioner the Company had carried out detailed environmental impact assessment of the project and it has been found to be conducive to the setting up of the project and the Company has also obtained the nine items of statutory clearances detailed in the Writ Petition. The adequacy or otherwise of the safety measures taken and the need, if any, of the Company to comply with the Municipality Building Rules etc. are matters which can be ventilated in W.P. (C ) 24256/2010. As for the constructions, if any, already effected and to be effected by the petitioner/Company, we are of the view that the proposed W.P.(C) No. 11075 of 2011 -:5:- disposal of this Writ Petition will take care of the apprehensions of respondents 4 and 5. Having regard to the nature of contentions raised and the law and order situation at the site we are inclined to grant police protection to the petitioner till 15-7-2011 within which time the parties shall take steps to get W.P. (C ) 24256 of 2010 finally heard and disposed of. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:- i) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner to carry on all the activities relating to the establishment of the L.P.G. Import Terminal Facility at Puthuvypeen as against any obstruction caused by or at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 till 15-07-2011. ii) The activities carried on by the petitioner at the aforementioned place proposed for the L.P.G. import terminal will be subject to the result of W.P. ( C) 24256/2010 and in case the verdict in W.P. (C ) 24256 of 2010 goes against the petitioner, the petitioner will have to either demolish the construction, if any, including the compound wall put up in the property or seek regularisation of the construction if that is W.P.(C) No. 11075 of 2011 -:6:- permissible in law and the petitioner will not be entitled to claim any other equities. iii) The petitioner as well as the respondents shall move the learned Judge before whom W.P. (C) 24256/2010 is pending, for an out of turn and an expeditious disposal of the same by 15-07-2011. Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. Sd/-V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge