Allowed

Benny Jabakumar Jose v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC22 Mar 2011WP(C)/4165/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by a petitioner seeking police protection to run a packaged drinking water unit. The court directed the police to afford protection ensuring the petitioner does not dig a bore well, relying on alternative water sources. This decision was delivered on 22 March 2011.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of the writ petition; direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner for the running of his industry against any obstruction from respondents 3 and 4

Benny Jabakumar Jose Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4165 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------PETITIONER(S):

¶5

-----------------------BENNY JABAKUMAR JOSE,TC XI/509, LAL FLOR,NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3.

¶6

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.MATHEW SUNNY, SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR.

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

---------------------------1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 541.

¶9

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANAD POLICE STATIOIN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ,PIN 695 542.

¶10

3. GOPAKUMAR,KIZHAKKE VEEDU, VELIYANNOOR PO, VELLANAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 543.

¶11

4. AJAYAKUMAR, MANAKKALA VEEDU, VELIYANNOOR PO, VELLANAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 543.

¶12

5. VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLANAD PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN 695 543.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.4165/2011 U

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 12/04/2010.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 16/04/2010.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT GIVEN BY THE VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 20/04/2010.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE NO OBJECITON CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT DTD. 4/05/2010.

¶24

P5: COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TD. 4/05/2010.

¶25

P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 4/05/2010.

¶26

P7: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 19/05/2010.

¶27

P8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 25/06/2010.

¶28

P9: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 26/06/2010.

¶29

P10: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 26/06/2010.

¶30

P11: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 12/07/2010.

¶31

P12: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD MEETING HELD ON 11/08/2010.

¶32

P13: COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE DISTRICT MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 31/08/2010.

Kss

..2/-

..2....

WPC.NO.4165/2011 U

¶37

P14: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE) DTD. 28/10/2010.

¶38

P15: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE VELLANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 27/01/2011.

¶39

P16: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 7/02/2011.

¶40

P17: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT DTD. 19/03/2011.

¶41

P18: COPY OF THE PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FOR ISSUING COUPON TO THE PETITIONER FOR COLLECTING WATER FROM ARUVIKKARA RIVER DTD. 17/03/2011.

¶42

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

**R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *************************

¶47

**W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U *******************************

¶48

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2011

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

BASANT, J.

¶51

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner for the peaceful carrying on of his activity of establishing and running a packaged drinking water manufacturing unit by name `Acquatic Industries'. According to the petitioner, he has got all requisite permissions etc. from the authorities. The 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat has accorded the necessary permission. Respondents 3 and 4 are unjustifiably causing illegal obstruction to the carrying on of the activity. It is, in these circumstances, that this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶52

Respondents 3 and 4 have appeared through counsel. Their only objection is that if the petitioner were to dig a bore well in the property to extract water for the purpose of his water based industry, that would bring down the water table in the locality and the local people would be affected by such

¶53

W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U

¶54

¶55

conduct. The petitioner may not be permitted to dig the bore well, prays respondents 3 and 4.

¶56

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no intention to dig any bore well in the property. That apprehension is totally unjustified. The petitioner intends to dig a pond in his property. He has already secured necessary permission from the Ground Water Department to dig such pond. If water from that pond is found to be not sufficient, the petitioner shall obtain water from the Aruvikkara water reservoir, for which he has now obtained requisite permission. The learned counsel for the petitioner particularly relies on Exts.P17 and P18 produced by him subsequently to contend that there is no intention to dig any bore well and that the apprehension of respondents 3 and 4 is totally unjustified.

¶57

The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that though respondents 3 and 4 were concerned about the possibility of the petitioner digging a bore well in the property, they have no intention to physically obstruct the petitioner. If necessary, they shall only initiate action in accordance with law against the petitioner. But according to respondents 3 and 4,

¶58

W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U

¶59

¶60

local people are agitated and disturbed about the possibility of the petitioner digging a bore well adversely affecting water table in the locality.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be made clear that the petitioner would not dig any bore well in the property and it may be clarified that the petitioner would depend only on the pond to be dug in his property as his source of water for his business in accordance with Ext.P17 and the transportation of the water from the reservoir as permitted under Ext.P18. Subject to that stipulation, protection may be granted, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶62

The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the officials are now satisfied that there is no valid objection or obstruction to the petitioner running his activity. Necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2, submits the learned Government Pleader.

¶63

We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that this petition can be allowed and appropriate orders can be issued.

¶64

In the result:

¶65

a) This Writ Petition is allowed;

¶66

W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U

¶67

¶68

b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner for the running of his industry against any obstruction from respondents 3 and 4 on condition that the petitioner does not dig any bore well in his property and gets water from the pond to be dug by him in the property as permitted under Ext.P17 and water transported from the reservoir if necessary as permitted under Ext.P18.

¶69

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶70

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶71

rtr/

¶72

W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U

¶73

¶74

**R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *************************

¶75

**W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U *******************************

¶76

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2011

ORDER

BASANT, J.

W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U 6

¶81

got all requisite permissions etc. from the authorities. It is his grievance that respondents 3 and 4 are raising illegal obstruction to the establishment and running of the said industrial activity by the petitioner.

¶82

Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance. They submitted that their only objection is that the petitioner may extract water without any control from a bore well and this, if he resorts to without the requisite permission of the authorities, is likely to lower the water table in the locality. Respondents 3 and 4 submit that their objection is not personal, but is only on behalf of the people of the locality, who would be adversely affected by such lowering of the water table.

¶83

The learned counsel for the petitioner in the wake of such objection asserted that the petitioner has no intention to dig the bore well in the property and the petitioner shall be digging a pond in the property and shall also be arranging to get water from the Aruvikkara water reservoir. There is no appearance for the 5^th respondent panchayat. We want the learned Government Pleader to ascertain whether there is any restriction/further permission required for digging a pond and to bring water from the Aruvikkara water reservoir to the unit of

¶84

W.P(C) No.4165 of 2011-U

¶85

¶86

the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader shall ascertain and furnish to the Court the necessary details about such permission if any required.

¶87

Call on 21.03.2011.

¶88

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶89

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶90

rtr/

Benny Jabakumar Jose v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny Jabakumar Jose v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fathima Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

R.Sasikumar Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Kunjahammed Vs the Supdt. of Police, Malappuram.

V.M.Mujeeb Rahman Vs the D.Y.S.P.Tirur and Others

K.Karunakaran Vs the Superintendent of Police and Others

Manakkil Traders Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva