Shareef P.B vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 1224 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.28792 OF 2020(Y)


PETITIONER:

               SHAREEF P.B
               AGED 50 YEARS
               S/O BEERAN P.K, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S GRAND
               POLYMER, KUZHIYAMPADAM, VALLAM, OKKAL
               P.O.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 550

               BY ADV. SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-
               683 574.

      2        PRINCE A.P.
               S/O PONNAPPAN, AMBHAT HOUSE, KARIYAMPADAM
               DESAM, MANJAPRA P.O.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683
               581.

               R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
               SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION        (CIVIL) HAVING    COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.01.2021,        THE COURT ON    THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

                                     2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who has started the installation work of a

Gum Manufacturing Unit, namely, 'Grand Polymers', in Manjapra

Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 1st respondent Inspector of Police, Kalady Police

Station, to give adequate and effective police protection to the

petitioner for completing the installation work of his

establishment, in the light of Exts.P2 to P7, without any

obstruction from the 2nd respondent and his men. The petitioner

has also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to establish

the unit by installing the required machineries and other

equipments in the light of Exts.P2 to P7 permissions/licences

issued by the competent authorities, without any obstruction

from the 2nd respondent and his supporters; and a writ of

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to take appropriate

action against the 2nd respondent and his men to see that no

obstruction is caused to the petitioner or his employees, who are

engaged in the establishment of the Polymer Unit as per the

permissions/licences granted to him vide Exts.P2 to P7. WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

2. The document marked as Ext.P1 is an order passed by

the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions dated

13.08.2018 in Appeal No.17 of 2018, whereby the Manjapra

Grama Panchayat was directed to reconsider the application

made by the petitioner for establishment permit afresh, as

stipulated in Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

To substantiate the fact that the petitioner is having the required

statutory permission/consent for establishing the Gum

Manufacturing Unit in question, he would place reliance on Ext.P2

No Objection Certificate dated 09.11.2018 granted by the District

Medical Officer, Ernakulam; Ext.P3 No Objection Certificate No.G-

5361/2018 dated 14.09.2018 issued by the District Fire Officer,

Ernakualm; Ext.P4 consent variation order dated 24.01.2019

issued by the Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State

Pollution Control Board, which is valid till 18.12.2022; Ext.P5

approved site plan; Ext.P6 deemed licence issued by the Single

Window Clearance Board dated 07.03.2019; and Ext.P7

certificate dated 07.03.2019 issued by the General Manager of

the District Industries Centre, Ernakulam.

3. On 22.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

admission, notice before admission was ordered to the

respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the

1st respondent. Urgent notice by special messenger was ordered

to the 2nd respondent.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st respondent and

also Adv.B.H.Mansoor, the learned counsel, appearing for the 2nd

respondent.

5. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate

and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation,

powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and

for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter

II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of

the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the

Police, as a service functioning category among the people as

part of the administrative system shall, subject to the

Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in

accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the

freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace

and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with

functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall,

subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions

enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a),

the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per

clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty,

property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance

with the law.

6. Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian

Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police

thus;

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice.

The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants."

7. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the

responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and

property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the

important duties the police has to perform. The aim of

investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the

offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle

in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2019)

15 SCC 470].

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the 2nd respondent and his men are causing obstruction to

the installation work in the petitioner's establishment, undertaken

on the strength of Exts.P2 to P7. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8

representation dated 05.12.2020 before the 1 st respondent, which

has already been acknowledged vide Ext.P9 receipt dated

05.12.2020. Due to the inaction on the part of the 1 st respondent

in rendering necessary police protection, the petitioner has

moved this writ petition seeking the appropriate reliefs.

9. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would

submit that, based on Ext.P8 complaint made by the petitioner,

the 2nd respondent and others were called to the police station by WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

the 1st respondent Inspector of Police and they were instructed

not to cause any law and order problems and were advised to

challenge the permission/consent/licence granted to the

petitioner for establishing the Polymer Unit, by approaching the

statutory authorities.

10. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions,

would also submit that the 1 st respondent had already instructed

the 2nd respondent and other local residents not to create any law

and order problem and to seek redressal of their grievance

against the petitioner's establishment, by approaching the

statutory forums. The learned Government Pleader would also

submit that, at present, there is no law and order problem in the

locality.

11. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

with the following directions;

(i) In case there is any obstructions from the 2nd

respondent and his men to the installation work in the

Polymer Unit of the petitioner, undertaken on the

strength of Exts.P2 to P7, it is for the petitioner to WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

make proper request before the 1st respondent,

seeking police protection, in which event, the 1 st

respondent shall render necessary police protection to

the petitioner and his workers to carryout the

installation work on the strength of Exts.P2 to P7.

(ii) The 1st respondent shall also ensure that there is

no threat to law and order in the locality, at the

instance of the 2nd respondent and his supporters.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything

as to the legality or otherwise of Exts.P2 to P7 No Objection

Certificates/consent/licence/approval granted by the authorities

concerned for establishing the Polymer Unit of the petitioner and

this judgment will not stand in the way of the aggrieved persons

approaching the statutory authorities against those certificate/

consent/ licence/approval.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

yd WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2020 IN APPEAL NO 17/2018 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO C-

2-22284/2018 DATED 9.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TO THE SECRETARY, MANJAPRA GTRAMA PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO G-5361/2018 DATED 14.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES ERNAKULAM TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KAKKANAD

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER NO PCB/EKM/DO-1/OA-337/14 DATED 24.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONERS ESTABLISHMENT

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF TH APPROVED SITE PLAN GIVEN BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER UNDER THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 24.1.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A9/4513/18 DATED 7.3.2019 GRANTING DEEMED LICENSE TO THE PETITIONER BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO A9/4513/18 DATED 7.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM WP(C)No.28792 of 2020

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.12.2020 GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXT P-8 COMPLAINT

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE