DILEESH KUMAR and ABHILASH @ KUTTAN SURENDRABHAVAN v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (KOLLAM RURAL) and others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DILEESH KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS S/O.VAMADEVAN, CHAPRAYIL HOUSE, MARANADU P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691505 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER TINA ALEX THOMAS HARIMOHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (KOLLAM RURAL) OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM - 691574`** - **`2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SASTHAMKOTTA SUB DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690521`** - **`3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691507`** - **`4 SHINE AGED 39 YEARS RESIDING AT SHARATH BHAVAN, THEVALAPPURAM, PUTHOOR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691507`** - **`5 JAYAKRISHNAN AGED 21 YEARS RESIDING AT VATHIYILAHIKATHU VEEDU, PUTHANAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690540`** - **`6 VISHNU. M @ KOCHIKKA, AGED 30 YEARS`** - **`RESIDING AT MANIMANDIRAM, PUTHANAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690540`** - **`7 MAHESH. U AGED 21 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKEPLATHARA VEEDU, IVERKALA, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691507`** - **`8 VINOD U.S AGED 35 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691507`** - **`9 VINEETH U.S AGED 33 YEARS`** ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`RESIDING AT THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM., PIN - 691507`** ||**`RESIDING AT THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL,`**<br>**`PUTHOOR, KOLLAM., PIN - 691507`**| |---|---| |**`10`**|**`ADARSH. V,`**| ||**`AGED 28 YEARS`**| ||**`RESIDING AT PLAKKOTTU,`**| ||**`IVERKALA EAST, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM., PIN - 691507`**| |**`11`**|**`AKHIL CHANDRAN`**| ||**`AGED 28 YEARS`**| ||**`RESIDING AT ARUN NIVAS, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O, KUNNATHUR,`**| ||**`KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691533`**| |**`12`**|**`RAJEESH. M @ REJI`**| ||**`AGED 50 YEARS`**| ||**`RESIDING AT PLATHARA MELETHIL, IVERKALA EAST,`**| ||**`PUTHOOR, KOLLAM., PIN - 691507`**| |**`13`**|**`SANDEEP`**| ||**`AGED 32 YEARS`**| ||**`RESIDING AT UTHRATTATHI, IVERKALA EAST,`**| ||**`PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691507`**| |**`14`**|**`A. RATHEESH @ MATHAN`**| ||**`AGED 37 YEARS`**| ||**`RESIDING AT NANDYATTU VEEDU, KUNNATHUR EAST,`**| ||**`KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691533`**| |**`15`**|**`MANOJ. A`**| ||**`AGED 40 YEARS`**| ||**`RESIDING AT ROHINI HOUSE, AMBALATHUM BHAGOM,`**| ||**`PORUVAZHI P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 690520`**| |**`16`**|**`THYAGARAJAN`**| ||**`AGED 51 YEARS`**| ||**`NANDANAM, KOOTTATHALA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691566`**| |**`17`**|**`NISHANTH`**| ||**`NISHANTH BHAVAN, KOTTATHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691566`**| |**`18`**|**`BAIJU`**| ||**`AGED 45 YEARS`**| ||**`BAIJU BHAVAN, KOOTTATHALA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691566`**| |**`19`**|**`JISHNU`**| ||**`AGED 26 YEARS`**| ||**`KAMBIKKATTUVADAKKATHIL, VENDAR P.O, KOLLAM, PIN- 691507`**| |**`20`**|**`SURESH`**| ||**`AGED 50 YEARS`**| ||**`CHARYAYIL VEEDU, VENDAR P.O, KOLLAM., PIN - 691507`**| |**`21`**|**`SUJITH`**| ||**`AGED 36 YEARS`**| ||**`SUJITH BHAVAN, VENDAR P.O, KOLLAM- 691 507`**| |**`22`**|**`SHAJI. B`**| ||**`AGED 45 YEARS`**| ||**`KIZHAKKEPARAYANKAALA, VENDAR P.O, KOLLAM., PIN - 691507`**| ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 23ABHILASH @ KUTTAN SURENDRABHAVAN, VENDAR P.O, KOOTTATHALA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691507 BY ADVS. K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) K.B.UDAYAKUMAR(K/1225/1995) SARAYOO S.(K/1642/2019) ALEXANDER GEORGE T.K.SHAJAHAN, SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ## **Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2022** This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: _“(i) To issue any directions, orders, writs or a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to issuance of Ext.P5 and quash the same._ _(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a declaration declaring that Ext.P5 is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed._ _(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents 1 to 3 to afford effective and adequate police protection: (i) for conducting quarrying operations in the site covered by Ext.P1 lease; (ii) for conducting transportation of rock boulders from the the quarrying site covered by Ext.P1 lease; (iii) for the unhindered ingress and egress of lorries and other vehicles to and from the quarrying site covered by Ext.P1 lease; (iv) to the life of Petitioner; his employees; his contractors and its workers; and (v) to the machineries, vehicles and other properties of Petitioner and its contractors used for conducting quarrying operations in the site and vehicles including lorries and other properties of the Petitioner, its transporters and contractors used for conducting transportation of rock boulders from the quarrying site covered by Ext. P1 quarrying lease from the obstruction and threat caused by Respondents 4 to 23, their henchmen, their agents or anybody acting under them._ _(iv) to issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration declaring that Respondents 1 to 3 are failing in their duty to protect the life and personal liberty of the Petitioner, his employees and employees of his contractors in as much as no police protection is granted to the Petitioner, his employees, their workers, machineries and vehicles going from and coming to Petitioner’s quarrying site covered by Ext. P1 lease.”_ ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 16 to 22 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 23[rd] respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been conducting quarry operations in 1.4383 Hectares of land in Block No.9 of Neduvathoor Village, Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam District. It is submitted that it is on the basis of all valid permissions and licenses that the quarrying was being carried out. While so, there were disputes between the lorry drivers engaged in the removal of the quarried material from the quarry in question and that crimes have been registered as evident by Exts.P3 and P4. While so, without any reason at all, it is submitted that Ext.P5 order has been passed by the 3[rd] respondent directing the closure of the quarry. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no justification for passing an order in the nature of Ext.P5 since the dispute was between the lorry drivers with regard to the transportation of the quarried materials. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala and others vs. Shyam Balakrishnan and others [2019 (3) KLT 669]** to contend that action of the police authorities will have to be informed by reason and as empowered by the provisions of law and that the police cannot resort to the provisions of Section 149 of the Cr.P.C. without following the due procedure and without proper reasons for restraining the activities of individuals or organizations which are being carried out in accordance with due permissions. 5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 23[rd] respondent. It is contended that the quarrying area of the petitioner is about 200m above road level and the rain water that accumulates in the quarry is pumped out using a motor set and it is causing nuisance to the residents of the locality. It is submitted that for the past 4 years, lorry owners, drivers and hooligans, who come to the quarry have caused clashes and harassment to the residents of the locality and that complaints have been submitted in this respect before the police which has led to Ext.P5. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 order had ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` been issued only to meet the law and order situation which was prevalent in the locality at the relevant time and it was only as a temporary measure that the same had been issued. It is further submitted that cases have been registered against the lorry drivers who were responsible for the clashes. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 16 to 22 that the disputes between the lorry drivers have been settled among themselves. 8. The learned Government Pleader contends that appropriate steps are being taken to see that law and order is maintained and that clashes do not recur in the locality. 9. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the submissions made on all sides, I am of the opinion that there is no justification, at least as at present, for the issuance of a proceedings in the nature of Ext.P5 under Section 149 of the Cr.P.C. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P5 is set aside. There will be a direction to the Station House Officer to see that law and order is maintained in the locality. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` 16 to 22 that the clashes stands settled between the contesting party respondents is recorded. The petitioner shall be permitted to carry out quarrying in strict compliance with the permissions granted, but without causing any nuisance to the peaceful life of the residents of the locality. In case of any obstruction to the legally permitted activity, the petitioner may inform the Station House Officer who shall take appropriate action to see that there is no breach of peace. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` NP ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 22349 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22349/2022`** |**`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE EXECUTED`**| ||**`BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF`**| ||**`KERALA DTD. 31.08.2018`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 22.06.2016 IN W.P.`**| ||**`(C) NO.16866/2016 ON THE FILES OF THIS`**| ||**`HON'BLE COURT.`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 894 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR`**| ||**`POLICE STATION UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,`**| ||**`294(B), 323, 324, 308 AND 149 OF THE INDIAN`**| ||**`PENAL CODE.`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 895 OF 2022 OF`**| ||**`PUTHOOR POLICE STATION UNDER SECTIONS 143,`**| ||**`147, 148, 294(B), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308,`**| ||**`506 AND 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 22.06.2022 ISSUED`**| ||**`UNDER SECTION 149 OF CR.P.C.`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 04.07.2022`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 05.07.2022`**| ||**`BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT BEARING`**| ||**`NO.3037/CAMP/PTN/22-QR DTD. 05.07.2022 ISSUED`**| ||**`FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT IN PETITION`**| ||**`NO.114182/2022 DTD. 05.07.2022 ISSUED FROM`**| ||**`THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT IN PETITION`**| ||**`NO.114159/2022 DTD. 05.07.2022 ISSUED FROM`**| ||**`THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`**| |**`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS`**|| |**`Exhibit R 23 (1)`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED TO THE`**| ||**`DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM`**| |**`Exhibit R 23 (3)`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY`**| ||**`DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOLLAM RURAL DATED`**| ||**`27.06.2022`**| |**`Exhibit R 23 (4).`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED TO THE`**| ||**`DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, KOLLAM`**| |**`Exhibit R 23 (2)`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED TO THE`**| ||**`DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL`**|