Aneesa Beegum A.J v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothencode

Kerala HC27 Jan 2014WP(C)/993/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a tile factory proprietor seeking police protection against obstruction by specific residents. The court held that since the petitioner operates a validly licensed tile factory and had not commenced the proposed PVC unit, the respondents had no lawful ground for objection. Police duties were directed to be discharged per standard procedure upon complaint.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of directing police to take action in accordance with prescribed procedures if any threat arises.

Aneesa Beegum A.J Vs the Sub Inspector of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/7TH MAGHA, 1935

¶6

WP(C).No. 993 of 2014 (Y)

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

ANEESA BEEGUM A.J. PROPRIETRESS, GALAXY TILES, VAVARAMBALAM POTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 584 RESIDING AT VILAYIL HOUSE NEAR TRIVENI STUDIO, POTHENCODE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 584.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHENCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 584.

¶12

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAZHAKKOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 582.

¶13

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 101.

¶14

RASHEED, TRIPTHI, PULIVEEDU WARD KEEZHTHONNACKAL VILLAGE VAVARAMBALAM POTHENCODE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 584

¶15

VINOD V., J.V. BHAVAN, PULIVEEDU WARD, KEEZHTHONNACKAL VILLAGE, VAVARAMBALAM POTHENCODE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 584.

¶16

VISHNU S. SIVAMANDIRAM KOCHUVILAKKADA, PULIVEEDU WARD KEEZHTHONNACKAL VILLAGE, VAVARAMBALAM POTHENCODE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 584.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶18

SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 993 of 2014 (Y)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE POTHENCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 25-3-2013.

¶24

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 01-07-2011.

¶25

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) DATED 19-3-2011.

¶26

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS DATED 20-12-2012.

¶27

EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28-12-2013.

¶28

EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COMPLAINT DATED 28-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN AS CRIME NO.949 OF 2013 DATED 28-12-2013 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION.

¶32

EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO ESTABLISH ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 06-11-2013.

¶33

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 993 OF 2014

¶40

- - - - Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2014

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Shaffique, J.

¶43

Petitioner is running a tile factory and has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and her workers. It is contended that the petitioner

¶44

has all valid permissions and licences to conduct the said tile factory and she proposes to start a PVC manufacturing unit as well for which she has applied for appropriate licence.

¶45

Apprehending that the new unit which the petitioner is proposing to conduct will cause health hazard to the nearby residents, respondents 4 to 6 by resorting to unlawful means are creating obstruction to the proper functioning of the tile factory. According to the petitioner, she has not started the PVC manufacturing Unit so far. But, some unknown persons trespassed into the property and caused damage to the premises. An FIR has also been lodged and Crime No.949 of 2013 is registered under Sections 427 and 448 of Indian Penal Code against certain unknown persons.

¶46

WP(C) No. 993 of 2014

¶47

-:2:-

¶48

Respondents 4 to 6 has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the licence obtained to run the tile factory is about to expire and that the petitioner is going to conduct a PVC manufacturing unit. According to them, under the guise of the tile factory, petitioner is going to conduct PVC manufacturing unit which is not permissible under law.

¶49

Having regard to the contentions urged by either parties we are of the view that if there is any law and order situation or criminal activity either by respondents 4 to 6 or by any of the persons as the case may be, it is the obligation of the police authorities to register a crime and conduct appropriate investigation in the matter. As the petitioner is not conducting any PVC manufacturing unit, there is no reason for respondents 4 to 6 to object the functioning of the tile factory which has valid licence/permission.

¶50

Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows :

¶51

If there is any threat to the functioning of the tile factory and PVC manufacturing Unit by respondents

¶52

WP(C) No. 993 of 2014

¶53

-:3:-

¶54

4 to 6 or any other persons, it shall be open for the petitioner to approach the Police personnel and in the event of receiving such a complaint, Police shall take necessary action in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

¶55

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶56

A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶57

ttb/28/01

Aneesa Beegum A.J v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothencode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesa Beegum A.J v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothencode

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

M/S. M Far Hotels Ltd., NH-47, Bye Pass Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Koncherry Coir Factories

Sherly Idicula Vs Mrs. Shoba Koshy

M.P Shiju Vs a.Ajithkumar

State of Kerala Vs M.C.Sainaba

Usman Vs the District Police Chief