IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32300 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.SASI,S/O.V.V.DAMODARAN,ERAPUZHA HOUSE, PUTHENVEEETTILPADY JUNCTION, M.C ROAD, CHEGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.ROHIT C.OOMMEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VINOD, S/O.BAHULEYAN,VINU BHAVANAM MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O, OCHIRA,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT. (MEMBER, WARD NO.VII, OCHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH) 690 525. 2. AMBUJAKSHY,CHIRAYUDE KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O, 690 525,OCHIRA. 3. SINDHU,CHIRAYUDE KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O, 690 525, OACHIRA. 4. TAHA,COLONY VEEDU,MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O, 690 525,OCHIRA. 5. JALALUDHEEN,THEKKUDUKATH HOUSE, MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O, 690 525,OCHIRA. 6. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM 691 001. 7. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM 691 001. 8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OCHIRA, 690 525. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.MAYA ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-5 SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR FOR R1-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32300 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1. TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.C-1010/2010/ADS DATED 18/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNER, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT -P2. TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE OCHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT -P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT -P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT -P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILL DATED 23/5/2011. EXHIBIT -P6. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE. EXHIBIT -P7. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENGANNUR BRANCH, TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT -P8. TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT -P9. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT -P10. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT -P11. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT -P12. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT -P13. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE MADATHIL KARAZHMA S.N.D.P SAKHA YOGAM NO.188 REGARDING THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32300 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner who claims to have made all arrangements for starting a coir yarn unit under the name and style Sree Sakthi Coir Industries has approached this Court seeking directions for police protection for to himself and to his workers so as to start production in the factory. According to him he has all requisite licences, permits, consents etc. for commencing the unit. Particularly, he refers to Ext.P1 proceedings of the Town Planner, Kollam in respect of the building in which the unit is being to be constructed. Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Panchayat relied on by him to show that he is the owner of the building as per the Panchayat records. Ext.P3 is the Panchayat license and Ext.P4 renewed licenses issued by the Panchayat. Ext.P7 is relied on by him to show that he has availed financial assistance from the Nationalised Bank. Ext.P8 is relied on by him to show that he has consent from the neighbouring property owners. Ext.P9 is the license issued by the Industries Department. Ext.P10 is yet another license issued by the same Department. According to him, the 1st respondent is a Panchayat member and W.P(C) No.32300 of 2011 2 respondent Nos.2 to 5 are persons who are hands glove with the 1st respondent. He alleges that the 1st respondent threatened that unless huge amounts demanded by him is paid to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent will not permit the petitioner to start the business. He alleges that scandals are being spread against the petitioner's unit and these scandals mislead the persons who are presently undergoing training in the training centre which the petitioner has started. He alleges that he is under the constant fear on account of the threats which have been unleashed on him by the party respondents. He submitted Ext.P11 complaint before the Police, which was acknowledged by the police vide Ext.P10. But the police have not taken any action. He alleges that the lethargic attitude of the petitioner is on account of the political clout, which the 1st respondent is wielding in the locality. 2. The party respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. True, the 1st respondent the Panchayat member, they contend that the felonious aggression which is attributed to the party respondents by the petitioner is highly reprehensible. They deny various allegations contained in the writ petition and submit that none of the party respondents are opposed to the petitioner for starting his unit and conducting the same. But they have reason to think that the petitioner's intention in procuring the licenses and W.P(C) No.32300 of 2011 3 permits as if to start a unit are not clean. It is alleged that the people of the locality believe that the petitioner is not serious about the running the unit. His intention is only to appropriate the huge subsidy from the Government and later on to close down the unit. Nevertheless Ext.R1(a) copy of a mass petition submitted by the several people of the locality who have serious apprehension about the manner in which the petitioner is conducting this unit is submitted along with the counter affidavit. To the counter affidavit the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions in the writ petition and producing Ext.P13. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.M.V.S Nampoothiry the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.Shrikumar, the learned senior counsel for the party respondents. We have heard the submissions of Smt.P.Maya, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. We have gone through the rival pleadings raised and the various materials placed on record. We are convinced that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the allegations that are levelled in the writ petition against the respondents. However, as the party respondents have conceded in the counter affidavit that they have no objection for the petitioner starting the unit on the strength of the various statutory permits, license and consents, we feel that the protection sought for by him in the matter of conducting the unit can W.P(C) No.32300 of 2011 4 be granted without in any way casting as persons on the credit and credibility of the party respondents. The Writ Petition will stand disposed of issuing the following directions: If starting or functioning of the Coiryarn unit proposed to be conducted by the petitioner under the name and style Sree Sakthi Coir Industries, on the strength of Exts.P1 to P10 is obstructed by any of the party respondents or for that matter by anybody else, it shall be the obligation of the 8th respondent to remove such obstructions and to pave the way for the peaceful commencement and conduct of the unit by the petitioner. We clarify once again that this judgment shall not be understood as acceptance by this Court of the correctness of the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the party respondents. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab