Allowed

N.C.Avarankutty Haji v. the Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC17 Mar 2011WP(C)/4698/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court affirmed the petitioner's right to police protection for quarrying laterite stones under a valid Geologist's permit and District Collector's order, rejecting local objections regarding residential proximity and environmental impact. The Court clarified that this does not bar Panchayat action for specific trade licences.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to afford police protection to petitioner against obstruction by respondents 3 to 9.

N.C.Avarankutty Haji Vs the Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | 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 THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 4698 of 2011(J) -----------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

----------------------

¶7

N.C.AVARANKUTTY HAJI, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, CHENANGATTIL HOUSE, VILAYIL P.O., KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

--------------------------

¶11

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶13

3. SASI, S/O.CHERIYAKUNHAN, PULIKAKANDI HOUSE, CHEEKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶14

4. IBRAHIM, S/O.AZEEZ MASTER, CHEEKKODE P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶15

5. SUKUMARAN, S/O.BHARATHAN, PULIKKAKANDI HOUSE, CHEEKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶16

6. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, OTTATHENGAN HOUSE, CHEEKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶17

7. SAMAD, S/O.KAMMU, KONNENGAL HOUSE, CHEEKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶18

tss

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.4698/2011

¶20

8. BHASKARAN, S/O.VALIYA KUNHAN, PULIKKALAKANDI HOUSE, CHEEKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶21

9. SREENIVASAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, PULIKKALAKANDI HOUSE, CHEEKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673640.

¶22

*ADDL. R10 IMPLEADED

¶23

10. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM . IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 11.3.2011.

¶24

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER

¶25

R3 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C) NO.4698/2011

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶30

P1:- COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MANJERI DTD. 29.12.2010.

¶31

P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DTD. 25.1.2011 AS NO.B4.3412/11.

¶32

P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 7.2.2011.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶34

R3(a):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(b):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(c):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(d):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(e):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(f):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(g):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(h):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. R3(i):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH

¶35

R3(j):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

¶36

R3(k):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

¶37

R3(l):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

¶38

R3(m):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE LOCALITY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 5.2.2011.

¶39

R3(n):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

R.BASANT &

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶45

W.P(C) NO:4698 OF 2011 J

¶46

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th March, 2011.

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Basant, J.

¶49

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking police protection for carrying on of the quarrying of laterite stones as permitted by Ext.P1 permit supported by Ext.P2 permission of the District Collector.

¶50

According to the petitioner he is legally authorised to carry on quarrying of laterites from his property. Petitioner has obtained Ext.P1 permit issued by the Geologist. Subsequently some objections were raised and the District Collector took note of the objections, considered the same and passed Ext.P2 order authorising the carrying on of the activity of quarrying under Ext.P1 issued by the Geologist. But when the petitioner started undertaking the said activity, respondents 3 to 9 are raising illegal and violent objections to the activity. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to him. Subsequently as directed by this

¶51

¶52

WPC 4698/2011

¶53

Court tenth respondent, District Collector who issued Ext.P2 has also been arrayed as a respondent.

¶54

The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1,2 and 10 submits that the State has no objection in the petitioner undertaking the activity as enabled by Exts.P1 and P2. The District Collector has filed a specific statement confirming that the petitioner is legally competent to carry on the said activity. No environmental problems are likely to result it is further submitted by the additional tenth respondent District Collector.

¶55

Respondents 3 to 9 raised objections against the grant of police protection. Various contentions are raised. It is contended that the Geologist and the District Collector had not adverted to relevant circumstances before issuing Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is a permit issued under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. That permit is not challenged. Prima facie we find absolutely no valid objections raised against the said permit. The objection of the contesting respondents that there are residential buildings near the venue of quarrying and that such quarrying may cause environmental problems has evidently been considered by the Geologist and the District Collector, additional tenth respondent.

¶56

WPC 4698/2011

¶57

¶58

Another objection is raised that the requisite permit under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 has not been obtained. Panchayat has not been made a party. Prima facie we do not find any merit in the contention that the activity of the petitioner would be covered under entry 83 of the schedule to the said Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner particularly points out that laterite is not included within the sweep of entry 100 of the schedule to the said Rules.

¶59

We do not intend to pronounce finally on the need to have licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. We need only mention that it will be up to the Panchayat if there be any violation to take necessary action against the petitioner.

¶60

We are in these circumstances satisfied that respondents 3 to 9 are not entitled to physically obstruct the running of the quarry by the petitioner on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 issued to him. Petitioner is entitled for protection as prayed for.

¶61

In the result;

¶62

a) This petition is allowed.

¶63

b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police

¶64

protection to the petitioner to carry out the activity of quarrying

¶65

WPC 4698/2011 4

¶66

as permitted by Ext.P1 against any obstruction caused by respondents 3 to 9.

¶67

c) We make it clear that this judgment shall not in any way fetter the rights of the Panchayat to take action for violation if any of the stipulations under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996.

¶68

We clarify that the right of the petitioner to move the civil court raising objections if any shall not also be fettered by this judgment. We further clarify that this judgment shall not fetter the power of the Geologist or the District Collector to consider representations allegedly submitted by respondents 3 to 9. Such representations shall be considered in accordance with law, certainly after giving notice to the petitioner.

¶69

R.BASANT Judge

¶70

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶71

¶72

WPC 4698/2011 5

N.C.Avarankutty Haji v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.C.Avarankutty Haji v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpn. Vs M/S.Kitex Garments Ltd.

E.S.I.Corporation Vs Apsara Tourist Home

Pradeep.P. Vs the Circle Inspector of Police, Haripad

Jacob Taliat Vs the Marine Products Exports Development

Joby Vs Marykutty Joseph

Leela Raghavan Vs State of Kerala