Petronet LNG Limited v. The Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural; Circle Inspector of Police, Njarakkal; Sub Inspector of Police, Njarakkal; Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), Vyppin Block; Youth Congress(I) Elamkunnapuzha Mandalam Committee; N.M. Vijayan (for Bharatiya Janata Party)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WP(C).No. 13846 of 2012 (E) --------------------------- WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2012/13TH ASHADHA 1934 PETITIONER : ------------ PETRONET LNG LIMITED, SURVEY NO.347,PUTHUVYPU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT (OPERATION & MAINTENANCE) MR.PUSHP KHETRAPAL. BY ADVS.SRI.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA-683101. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL-682505. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL-682505. 4. DEMOCRATIC YOUTH FEDERATION OF INDIA (DYFI), VYPPIN BLOCK, VYPPIN, ERNAKULAM DIST., REP.BY ITS BLOCK PRESIDENT, MR.M.P.PRASOBH(MOOTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH, PUTHUVYPR P.O.-682508). WP(C).No. 13846 of 2012 (E) 5. YOUTH CONGRESS(I) ELAMKUNNAPUZHA MANDALAM COMMITTEE, OCHANTHURUTHU, PUTHUVYPU P.O.-682508, ERNAKULAM DIST., REP.BY ITS MANDALAM PRESIDENT, MR.DIXON I.S. 6. N.M.VIJAYAN, S/O.N.P.MADHAVAN, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BHARATIYA JANATHA PARTY) AIYYANPALLY P.O., KIZHUPPALLI, MUNAMBAM,ERNAKULAM DIST-682508. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER C.R.SYAM KUMAR BY ADV. SRI. P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN (STATE ATTORNEY) BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JUSTINE BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH BY ADV. SMT.M.B.SHYNI BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP BY ADV. SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) BY ADV. SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- ## WP(C).No. 13846 of 2012 (E) ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1:AN ARIEL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EXT.P2:COPY OF A REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY ON 8/6/2012 EXT.P3:COPY OF A NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD 12/6/2012 REGARDING THE PICKETING BY 5TH RESPONDENTS EXT.P4:CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PICKETING CONDUCTED ON 7/6/2122 BY the 4TH RESPONDENT(DYFI) EXT.P5:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE , NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, DTD 12/6/2012 EXT.P6:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE , ERNAKULAM RURAL ON 12/6/2012 EXT.P7:COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE DYFI REGARDING THE PICKETING ON 7/6/2012 EXT.P8:COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE YOUTH CONGRESS (I) ELAMKUNNAPPUZHA MANDALAM COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PICKETING ON 11/6/2012 EXT.P9:COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE BHARATIYA JANATHA PARTY,REGARDING THE PICKETING ON 12/6/2012. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.06.2012 ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS. EXT.P11:- COPY OF A NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 28.03.2012 WP(C).No. 13846 of 2012 (E) - EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE SIMILAR ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 18.04.2012 - EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 09.05.2012 - EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED AND PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 14.12.2011 - EXT.P15:- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED AND PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 21.12.2011 - EXT.P16:- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED AND PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.02.2012 - EXT.P17:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED ON 13.6.2012 TO ONE GAGARIN A.C. OF VYPPIN APPOINTING HIM TO THE POST OF PLANT OPERATOR - EXT.P18:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED ON 09.05.2012 TO ONE BIBIN BOSE OF NJARAKKAL APPOINTING HIM AS JUNIOR TECHNICIAN (INSTRUMENTATION) - EXT.P19:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING CONVENED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM ON 18.4.2007 - EXT.P20:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM ON 07.07.2007 - EXT.P21:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11.12.2009 IN THE CHAMBERS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM EXT.P22:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12.01.2011 IN THE CAMP OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - EXT.P23:- COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN PORT TRUST TO MR.NICHOLAS RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: - R4(a):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ABOVE MEETING HELD ON 05.02.2010 WP(C).No. 13846 of 2012 (E) R4(b):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ABOVE MEETING HELD ON 22.02.2010 /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DSV/- ## **K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] July, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K. Harilal, J.** The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a Company promoted by four Public Sector Undertakings namely Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Gas Authority of India Ltd. This joint venture Company has been formed for the import and re-gasification of liquified natural gas in suitable locations. Now the Company is in the process of setting up a five MMTPA terminal at Kochi. It is averred that this project is one of national importance involving major investments from various Indian lenders and foreign financial investments and the setting up of the Kochi LNG terminal will have immense benefits for the State of Kerala. The total investment in Kochi project is approximately 4200 Crores. The State of Kerala is likely to witness high growth in gas **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 2 : consumption with the gas demand expected to be dominated by power sector. In future, the LNG project would be the major supplier of gas to the industries mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition and the petitioner company has a crucial role to play in the natural gas scene in India, as there is a huge deficit of natural gas in India due to the large gap in demand and supply. The project site area is declared as a special economic zone by the Government of India as per the provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner has entered into a co-developer agreement with Cochin Port Trust and has been accorded co-developer status. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 7.6.2012, the fourth respondent and its supporters picketed the main gate of the project site of the petitioner Company and prevented workers and other staff from entering into the premises. As a result, no construction activities took place on 7.6.2012. Their demand was that employment opportunities must be given to ## **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 3 : locals. Again on 11.6.2012, the fifth respondent and its supporters gathered at the main gate, staged a similar picketing and thereby obstructed the construction activities. Again on 12.6.2012, the sixth respondent and their supporters picketed the main gate and prevented construction activities on that day also. On 13.6.2012 large number of fishermen have assembled in front of the gate and attempted to block entry to the project site. They were also demanding employment opportunities to the local people. On all these days entire work in the project site has come to a standstill, resultantly the petitioner Company was made to suffer heavy damages. 3. Aggrieved by the picketing and obstruction caused by the respondents 4 to 6, on 12.6.2012, the petitioner submitted a complaint regarding the illegal activities of respondents 4 to 6, before the third respondent and the matter was brought to the notice of the first respondent also. The picketing and obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 6 would cause heavy damage **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 4 : resulting in payment of huge penalties which is not beneficial for either the State of Kerala or the project proponents. But, respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any effective steps to remove obstruction and also to provide adequate police protection for the smooth running of the petitioner company. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition and prayed for the following reliefs: _"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner, its staff, contractors and employees enabling the petitioner to carry on the construction activities at its project site in Puduvypin, Ernakulam District, without any hindrance from respondents 4 to 6 and its supporters._ _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to provide effective and adequate police protection for ensuring free ingress and egress to the project site of the petitioner in Puduvypin, Ernakulam District without any hindrance from respondents 4 to 6 and its supporters._ : 5 : ## **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** _(iii) Declare that respondents 4 to 6 have absolutely no manner of right to prevent the lawful activities of the petitioner and the construction work being carried out at its project site in Puduvypin, Ernakulam District._ _(iv) Issue an order of injunction restraining respondents 4 to 6 and their supporters from interfering with the construction activities of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever._ _(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that any agitation carried out by respondents 4 to 6 and their men are carried on peacefully and at least 50 metres away from the entrance to the project site of the petitioner."_ 4. The fourth respondent entered appearance and filed a Counter Affidavit stating as follows: 'Vypeen Island' is an under-developed area which has got road connectivity only very recently. So many highly qualified youngsters were seeking employment in the island. Though the islanders whole-heartedly welcomed the establishment of LNG **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 6 : terminal in their island, the petitioner company was not willing to provide employment opportunities to a good number of families who were evicted from their homesteads. At the time of eviction, there was an understanding between the locals, the representatives of the petitioner and the District Administration that a portion of the employment generated in the establishment will be given to the locals including the evictees and the understanding was reduced to a mutual agreement between the representatives of the Company, Port Trust, District Administration and the people of the locality represented by the local MLA and the agreement is evidenced by Ext.R4(a). As per clause (2) of Ext.R4(a), the Village Officer shall prepare a list of educated youngsters from the evicted families and will submit to the authorities. Though there was an agreement, the petitioner has engaged only manual labourers during the course of construction only and after commencement of operation, the petitioner is not willing to provide employment opportunities to **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 7 : the local people as agreed by Ext.R4(a). This resulted in discontent among the local people which is materialised to an agitation in complete disregard of the colour of political flags. So, the fourth respondent had also conducted a dharna in front of the main gate of the company. Though they staged dharna, they did not cause any obstruction to the normal functioning of the establishment. As per Ext.R4(a), there is an understanding between all the parties that educated members of evictee families will be provided with regular employment. But, overlooking it, the petitioner had proceeded with the selection process only in internet, which has caused a speculation among the islanders that the attempt of the petitioner is to deny employment to the locals, and the denial of employment resulted in a peaceful protest in front of the establishment. 5. The fourth respondent has filed an Additional Counter Affidavit along with Ext.R4(b) minutes in support of Ext.R4(a). Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit contending as follows: **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 8 : The allegation that there was an agreement between the locals, representatives of the petitioner and the District Administration that a portion of employment generated in the establishment will be set apart for locals including evictees, is absolutely false and denied. A reading of Ext.R4(a) would make it clear that it is an agreement regarding acquisition of 0.95 hectares of land for Cochin Port Trust to construct a road leading from nearby Goshree Bridge to the project site of the petitioner and Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) have nothing to do with the petitioner's project. The only connection is that it relates to an approach road constructed by Cochin Port Trust. The only undertaking by the petitioner which is referred to in Ext.R4(a) is essentially financial assistance for infrastructure development to areas where the persons were evicted for road development. For this purpose, petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.51.83 Lakhs to the District Administration. Thus, they have already fulfilled the promise made in Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). Petitioner **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 9 : has, to the extent possible, encouraged the engagement of local people through its contractors in the project. The project from the commissioning onwards involves high technical operation and maintenance activities and, therefore, largely highly skilled and technically qualified persons with requisite experience are necessary for the operation of the project. In short, according to the petitioner, there is no enforceable agreement between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 and thereby, there is no legal obligation to provide employment opportunities to the local people, in view of Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). 6. Though the question in controversy that emerges from the pleadings in the counter affidavit and reply affidavit centers around the validity and enforcement of the agreement between the petitioner and organizations representing local people to provide employment opportunities to the local people, we feel that we need not go to resolve that issue in this jurisdiction. Even if there is a valid or enforceable agreement, the **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 10 : respondents 4 to 6 have no right to cause any kind of obstruction to the construction work or operation of the petitioner company, in case of the breach of agreement, instead of resorting to peaceful remedies. We are concerned with the only question whether the petitioner has the right to get police protection under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Indisputably the petitioner is a company constituted to carry on industrial or business activities for which they have already obtained permission of the Central Government, State Government and all other necessary statutory authorities and the company is in the process of setting up this huge project of national importance. On the other hand, respondents 4 to 6 have no right to cause any kind of obstruction to the construction works or operation of the petitioner company. 8. In the decision reported in _**Essar Telecommunications (P). Ltd. v. C. I. of Police (2010 (2) KLT 762),**_ a Full Bench of this Court held that it is not for anybody to cause physical ## **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 11 : obstruction to the vested right and interest of the other citizen preventing construction/operation using muscle power. In the decision reported in _**Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others (2007 (4) KLT 540)**_ , with reference to Sections 29 (B) (C) (D) and (G) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 149 of Cr. P. C. and the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it was held that "if a person disobeys a law, whatever be the motivation for the same, law must take its own course and the police have a duty in the light of the provisions of Cr. P. C. and the Police Act, to maintain law and order and to avert breach of peace and obstruction. If a person having no right does the mischief, the petitioner is entitled to get police protection invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India". We also observe that whatever be the claim and motive, means employed is equally important and must be justifiable as that of ends desired. 9. In the light of the above decisions, respondents 4 to 6 ## **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 12 : have no right to make any kind of obstruction to the construction or operation of the petitioner establishment, whatever be the cause. We also notice that this prestigious project of Kerala is having national importance and huge investment. Each day of delay would cause heavy damage to the project. The recurring of picketing paralysing the construction works of the petitioner indicates that respondents 1 to 3 failed to provide adequate police protection. Therefore, we are inclined to grant police protection as prayed for. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that they have no intention to cause any obstruction to the operation of the petitioner establishment and they intend to make peaceful protest only. We record the above submission. 10. In the above circumstances, we make the interim order dated 13.6.2012 absolute. We also observe that this Order will not stand in the way of peaceful protest being held without causing any kind of obstruction to the construction works or **W.P.(C). NO.13846 OF 2012 E** : 13 : operation of the petitioner establishment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. **K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE** **kbk/cl.**