Seethu Granites (P) LTD vs. The Superintendent Of Police - Kerala High Court, 20 February 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR WEDNE AY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SEETHU GRANITES (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, K. SANTHA KUMAR, KACHERIPPADAM KALAM, VITHANASSERI, NENMARA 678 508. BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.THOMAS GEORGE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS: 1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PALAKKD. 678 508. 2 THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NENMARA 678 508. 4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NENMARA POLICE STATION, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 508. 5 MOHANAN.K., S/O. LATE KARUPPAN, VELUTHEDATH KODAMBU, VITHANASSERI 678 508. WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 2 6 MANOJ.K., S/O. KUTTAN, CHIKAMPURAKKAL HOUSE, VITHANASSERI 678 508. 7 RATHEESH.V., S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, VELUTHEDATH KOLAMBU, VITHANASSERI, NENMARA 678 508. 8 RAMESH.V., S/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, VELUTHEDATH KOLAMBU, VITHANASSERI, NENMARA 678 508. 9 GOPINATH, VELUTHEDATH KOLAMBU, VITHANASSERI, NENMARA 678 508. 10 ARAVINDAKSHAN. A., S/O. LATE APPUKUTTAN, KALATHIL VEEDU, THEKKETHARA, VITHANASSERI, NENMARA 678 508. 11 MANOJ, S/O. LATE PONNUMESSERI, VELUTHEDATH KOLAMBUM VITHANSSERI, NENMARA. 678 508. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R5,R6, R8 & R9 BY ADV. SRI RAJAN VISHNURAJ BY SRI.V.HARISH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 3 JUDGMENT P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of forceful obstruction stated as being caused by the private respondents with regard to running of a crusher unit in the property in question.

Heard the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and the learned Sr.Government Pleader.

The sequence of events shows that the petitioner was running a quarry and a crusher unit in the area,

based

on the various licenses/clearance/permits issued by the authorities concerned. By virtue of subsequent developments, the petitioner was constrained to stop the activities in respect of the quarry and presently, the petitioner is running only the crusher unit. Ext.P1 is the Consent to Operate issued by the Pollution Control Board, which

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 4 is valid till 31.08.2020, Ext.P2 is the D&O Licence issued by the Local Authority having validity till 31.03.2019. The petitioner is having Dealer's Licence issued by the District Geologist, as borne by Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the GST Registration issued to the petitioner by the competent authority. It is stated that the petitioner is running the crusher Unit on the strength of valid licence/clearance as mentioned above.

The Crusher Unit is situated about ½ Km away from the State Highway. The road leading from the State Highway to the Unit of the petitioner is stated as narrow to an extent of 152-200 metres, which according to the petitioner is by virtue of encroachment made by the local inhabitants. While so, Ext.P8 G.O. came to be issued by the Government on 29.09.2015 prohibiting heavy lorries having loading capacity of more than 10 tonnes from plying through the road having width of less than 6 metres. Based on the said G.O., various complaints came to be filed before the Police to prohibit plying of heavy lorries by the petitioner.

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 5

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the operation of the quarry has been stopped by the petitioner, boulders are not available for running the crusher unit, which are being procured from distant places in heavy trucks. After converting the same as metals in the crusher Unit, it is being transported to different destinations.

Pursuant to filing of the complaints, some mediation talks were held in the police station leading to Ext.P9

minutes/consensus,

whereby

certain stipulations were issued, to be complied with by the petitioner, particularly with regard to time limit for operation of the vehicles. It was also agreed by the petitioner that within two months, the petitioner would give effect to Ext.P8 G.O. by stopping transportation through heavy vehicles and confining the operation, making use of other vehicles of lesser capacity. Later, the petitioner came to know that Ext.P8 G.O was also under challenge before this Court in W.P. (C)No.10034 of 2016, wherein Ext.P10 interim order of

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 6 stay was granted by a learned Judge of this Court on 25.10.2016. It is stated that the matter is still pending and the interim order is continuing as such. In the said circumstance, the petitioner moved the police by filing Ext.P11 representation to the effect that there cannot be any ban on bringing materials/boulders in heavy vehicles or carrying the same after conversion as metals in similar vehicles from the crusher unit. This was followed by such other representations as Exts.P12 and P13 as well. After taking note of the situation, the police issued Ext.P14 proceedings to the petitioner, permitting operation of the Unit, however stipulating some conditions therein which are stated as being complied with by the petitioner.

Despite this, the private respondents herein have taken law into their hands and are causing forceful obstruction with regard to the deployment of heavy vehicles, virtually ignoring the mandate of Ext.P10 interim order passed by this court. This made

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 7 the petitioner to approach the police again by filing representations, which did not yield any positive result. Hence the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the allegation in the writ petition is not correct. It is also conceded that the issue is pending consideration before the learned single Judge in W.P. (C)Ns.10034 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein Ext.P10 interim order has been passed. The learned counsel adds with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit, particularly paragraphs 3 and 5, that they had never caused any forceful obstruction; nor will they cause such obstruction with regard to running of the crusher Unit and that it might be subject to further orders to be passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(C)No.10034 of 2016 and connected cases.

The petitioner concedes that the petitioner is ready to comply with all the conditions stipulated by the police in Ext.P14, in larger public interest. The

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 8 said conditions are in the following terms: വവിത്തനശശ്ശേരവിയവിൽ പപ്രവർത്തവികക്കുന സസീതക്കു പഗഗ്രാനനററ എന പക്രഷർ യയൂണവിറവിശലേകറക അസസംസക്രസ്കൃത വസതക്കുകൾ വഗ്രാഹനങ്ങളവിൽ നക്രഗ്രാണക്കു ശപ്രഗ്രാക്രക്കുനതക്കുമഗ്രായവി ബന്ധനപ്പെടറ തഗ്രാനഴ പ്രറയക്കുന നവിർശദ്ദേശങ്ങൾ ക്രർശനമഗ്രായവി പ്രഗ്രാലേവിശകണതഗ്രാണ. 1. വഗ്രാഹനങ്ങൾ വവിത്തനശശ്ശേരവിയവിൽ നവിനക്കുസം നപക്രഷർ യയൂണവിറവിശലേകറ 20 Km ൽ ക്രക്കുറഞ ശവഗതയവിൽ മഗ്രാപതശമ ശപ്രഗ്രാക്രഗ്രാവയൂ 2. വഗ്രാഹനങ്ങൾ നവിർബന്ധമഗ്രായക്കുസം മയൂടവി നക്രശടണതഗ്രാണ. 3. സക്രയൂൾ സമയങ്ങളവിൽ, ക്രഗ്രാലേത്തറ 08.30 മണവി മക്കുതൽ 10.00 മണവി വനരയക്കുസം, വവക്രസീടറ 03.30 മണവി മക്കുതൽ 5.00 മണവി വനര സമയങ്ങളവിലേക്കുസം വഗ്രാഹനങ്ങൾ ഓടവികഗ്രാൻ പ്രഗ്രാടക്കുള്ളതലേല. 4. ദവിവശസന ഒനവിടവവിടട്ടുള്ള സമയങ്ങളവിൽ ശറഗ്രാഡ നനചട്ടു നക്രഗ്രാടക്കുകക്കുനതവിൻ ശവണ നടപ്രടവിക്രൾ സസസീക്രരവിശകണതഗ്രാണ. 5. വഗ്രാഹനസം വവിത്തനശശ്ശേരവി നമയവിൻ ശേറഗ്രാഡവിൽ നവിനക്കുസം നപക്രഷർ യയൂണവിറവിശലേകറ പപ്രശവശവികക്കുന സ്ഥലേത്തറ ക്രമ്പനവി വക്ര ആനള നവിർത്തവി ഗതഗ്രാഗതസം പക്രമസീക്രരവിശകണതഗ്രാണ. 6. എതവിനര വരക്കുന വഗ്രാഹനങ്ങൾകക്കുറ തടസ്സമക്കുണഗ്രാകഗ്രാനത പക്രഷർ യയൂണവിറവിശലേകറ ശപ്രഗ്രാക്രക്കുന വഗ്രാഹനങ്ങൾ ' നവിരനവിരയഗ്രായവി ഒനവിചറ ശപ്രഗ്രാക്രക്കുനതക്കുറ ഒഴവിവഗ്രാശകണതഗ്രാണ. …

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 9

10.

After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that, since the validity of Ext.P8 G.O. has been subjected to challenge before this Court in W.P(C)NO.10034 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein Ext.P10 interim order of stay has been granted, the petitioner is entitled to pursue the operation, bringing heavy vehicles as well, in so far as the said interim order stands. In the said circumstance, recording the submission/undertaking given by both the sides before this Court, we find it appropriate to close the writ petition, making it clear that the operation of the crusher Unit of the petitioner, making use of heavy vehicles as referred to in Ext.P8 G.O., shall be subject to further orders/judgment to be passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)10034 of 2016 and connected cases. If there is any violation to the undertaking as aforesaid, causing forceful obstruction and once the same is reported to the police, it shall be for the respondents 3 and 4 to take immediate

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 10 remedial measures so as to abate the threat to the rule of law, by offering adequate and effective protection. The writ petition stands disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE N. ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE lk

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE RENEWAL OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 30.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 5.4.2018. EXHIBIT P3OF ORDER DATED 5.5.1995 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P4OF THE NO. OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 1.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASST. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P5OF PRESENT DEALERS LICENSE DATED 31/3/2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PROVISIONAL, REGISTRATION DATED 28.6.2017. EXHIBIT P7OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P9OF THE SETTLEMENT ON 10.11.2018 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P10OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2016 IN WPC NO. 10034/2016 OF THIS HON COURT.

WP(C).No. 3281 of 2019 12 EXHIBIT P11OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.12.2018 BEFORE THE POLICE INSPECTOR, NENMARA. EXHIBIT P12OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/1/2019 BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P14 EXHIBIT P15 EXHIBIT P16 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R5(a) EXHIBIT R5(b) EXHIBIT R5(c)OF THE PETITION DATED 29.1.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENTOF THE NOTICE DATED 29.01.2019 TO THE PETITIONEROF THE PERMIT DATED 11.04.2013 BY THE SECRETARY, NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.OF THE PERMIT DATED 6.4.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE PCB IN THE YEAR 2014 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS WELL AS OTHER LOCAL RESIDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // P.S. TO JUDGE.