W.P.(C).No.24384/22, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

W.P.(C).No.24384/22 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 24384 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** S.SASEENDRAN PILLAI AGED 60 YEARS S/O.K.SANKARA KURUP, SREE RAMA VILASAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM - 691 578. BY ADVS. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALLICKAL POLICE STATION, PALLICKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 602. 3 VISHNU MEMBER, D.Y.F.I. (PALLICKAL UNIT), RESIDING AT THOTTUNKARA VEEDU, PAKALKURI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 604. W.P.(C).No.24384/22 2 4 ANIL KUMAR MEMBER, BHARATHIYA JANATHA PARTY (PALLICKAL UNIT), RESIDING AT PRANAVAM NIVAS, PAKALKURI P.O., KULAKKUDY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 604. 5 MANU MEMBER, INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (PALLICKAL UNIT), RESIDING AT MANU MANDIRAM, PAKALKURI P.O., KULAKKUDY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 604. BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ SHILPA SOMAN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON 22.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.24384/22 3 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.24384 of 2022** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## 1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- I) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection for the smooth functioning of the quarrying unit as well as the crusher unit run by the petitioner; ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondents 3 to 6 and their men for causing unlawful obstruction to the lawful conduct of the business of the petitioner; iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the conduct of the business by the petitioner without any obstruction or hindrance by respondents 3 to 6 or their men.” **==> picture [425 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** 2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting party respondents. W.P.(C).No.24384/22 4 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a proprietor of a Metal Crusher Unit at Kalluvathukkal in Kollam district. He also owns a quarrying unit at Pallickal village at Thiruvananthapuram district about 7 kms from the crusher unit. The units have all required permissions from the Panchayat and the Mining and Geology department as well as environmental clearance and the quarrying is done in accordance with the permissions. It is stated that the rocks quarried are to be transported to the crusher unit and the metal generated is used for construction purposes including the widening of the National Highway. It is submitted that respondents 3 to 6 are obstructing the transportation of the quarrying material and are blocking the access to and from the quarry. Though complaints were filed before the 2[nd] respondent, no protection has been granted by the police, it is contended. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the - 5[th] respondent. It is stated that the licence granted by the W.P.(C).No.24384/22 5 Panchayat is not valid or binding since the licence was issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat and the same is under challenge in W.P.(C).No.7579/2021. It is submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 233(3) and 233(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 12(2)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 are also under challenge in the said writ petition. It is submitted that the said fact is not disclosed in the instant writ petition. It is submitted that Exhibit P4 licence is obtained suppressing several relevant factors and that the Grama Sabha of Ward No.12 of Pallickal Grama Panchayat convened on 19.3.2012 had decided to recommend cancel the licence issued to the petitioner. It is further stated that Exhibit R5(b) report of the Panchayat Secretary discloses that the house of the 5[th] respondent is within a distance of 79 metres from the quarry and that the quarrying is done without complying with the directions in the permissions issued. It is submitted that there is excess quarrying carried out by the petitioner as well and that the matter is under consideration of this Court in W.P. W.P.(C).No.24384/22 6 (C).No.7579/2021. It is submitted that there is a major public protest against the quarry run by the petitioner and that the petitioner is not entitled to the protection as sought for. - 5.The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the decisions of this Court in **Harrisons Malayalam Ltd v. State of Kerala and others** [2007(3) KKHC 946] and **Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Circle Inspector of Police** [(2010) 2 KLT 762 (FB)] to contend that where there are valid objections against the activities, police protection is not be granted. 6. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record wherein it is contended that this Court in W.P.(C).No.7579/2021 had considered all the contentions and had passed Exhibit P11 order dated 7.2.2022 vacating the interim stay granted and permitting the quarry to function. It is further submitted that Exhibit P12 order had been passed on 22.7.2009 vacating Exhibit R5(c) order of the District Collector. It is submitted that Exhibit P13 licence has also been granted to the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.24384/22 7 7.I have considered the contentions advanced. The question with regard to the validity of the licence issued to the petitioner to conduct the quarry is pending before this Court in W.P.(C).No.7579/2021. While it is true that the pendency of the writ petition is not disclosed in this writ petition, it is equally true that the fact that the interim order therein stands vacated has not been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent, who is admittedly the writ petitioner therein. An interim order was rendered in that case which stands vacated after hearing all the parties by Exhibit P11 order dated 7.2.2022. As at present, the petitioner has the requisite licences for the conduct of the quarry as well as the crusher unit. If that be so, the respondent without obtaining orders from the competent authorities cannot contend that they have any right to obstruct the conduct of the quarry as per permissions granted. When complaints are submitted before the police alleging illegal obstructions and breach of peace, the police have a duty to ensure that law and order is maintained. The W.P.(C).No.24384/22 8 police cannot enter into an adjudication as to the merits of the protests. Where there are permissions granted by competent authorities and the interdictory orders are no longer in force, the police cannot await the final resolution of all disputes before assistance is provided to see that there is no breach of peace. 8.Leaving open all the contentions of the parties to be decided in the challenges raised by the contesting party respondents against the quarrying leases, permissions and environmental clearances granted to the petitioner, there will be a direction to the respondents to afford adequate protection for the functioning of the quarry in the manner as provided in the permissions granted to the petitioner. In case such functioning is obstructed by the contesting party respondents, the petitioner may approach the Station House Officer, who shall afford adequate protection. It is made clear that this is without prejudice to the contentions of the contesting party respondents or other residents of the locality with regard to any violation of the conditions and also W.P.(C).No.24384/22 **==> picture [10 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in W.P. (C).No. 7579/2021. **==> picture [25 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.24384/22 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24384/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 1/4/2022. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.42/202223/9172/M3/2021/DMG DATED 9/5/2022 GIVEN BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT DATED 17/06/2022. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO.31/18 DATED 19/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY AND SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM DATED 20/01/2020. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE/AUTHORIZATION/REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 31/07/2018. - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 27/11/2020. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE OBSTRUCTION CAUSED BY RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6. W.P.(C).No.24384/22 11 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/07/2022. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/07/2022. - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/2/2022 IN WPC NO.7579/2021 - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B7-10572/09 DATED 22/7/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT AS ORDER NO.A4-2839/20 DATED 27/11/2020 ## RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS |Exhibit R5(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING<br>OF THE GRAMA SABHA IN WARD NO.XII OF<br>PALLIKKALGRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 19.3.12.| |---|---| |Exhibit R5(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3.8.2012<br>SUBMITTED BY THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY| |EXHIBIT R5(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED<br>18.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT<br>COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE