Abdul Majeed Kottengodan vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 22385 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                           PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                                WP(C) NO. 12597 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

              ABDUL MAJEED KOTTENGODAN, AGED 48 YEARS
              S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, KOTTENGODAN HOUSE, PALOTH,
              POOVATHIKKAL P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

              BY ADV BABU S. NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
              MALAPPURAM 676 505.
     2        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
              AREACODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639.
     3        MUHAMMED SHAFI P.K., AGED 35 YEARS
              S/O. SAIDALAVI, PALENKUZHIYAN HOUSE, POOVATHIKKAL P.O.
              PALOTH, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639.
     4        VENUGOPALAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN NAIR,
              USHUS PALOTH, POOVATHIKKAL P.O. , AREACODE, MALAPPURAM
              DISTRICT 673 639.
     5        SIDDIQUE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. UNNI MUHAMED HAJI, KUTTASSERY
              HOUSE, PALOTH, POOVATHIKKAL P.O. , AREACODE, MALAPPURAM
              DISTRICT 673 639.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP
              SRI.T.H.ARAVIND



     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 12597/20
                                          2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that

respondents 3 to 5 are causing obstruction of his legally

operated business of manufacturing 'M-Sand', though he is

doing so under all necessary licenses and consents from the

Statutory Authorities.

2. The petitioner says that when obstruction from the

party respondents became unbearable, he was constrained to

approach the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer, seeking

protection; but that since no action was taken thereon, he has

been forced to approach this Court through this Writ Petition.

3. In response, Sri.Aravind T.H. - learned counsel for

respondents 3 to 5, submitted that his clients are extremely

concerned about the horrendous pollution caused by the

activities of the petitioner's business Unit, but that since the

licenses issued clearly indicate that he can operate his business WPC 12597/20

only between 6 a.m and 6 p.m, they would not stand in the

way of this Court confirming the interim order granted on

24.09.2020.

4. Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government Pleader,

submitted that the Police are keeping a close vigil over the area

in question, and that in compliance with the afore interim

order, law and order has been maintained, without any breach

being allowed to be committed by any person, including the

party respondents, thereafter.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without

doubt that as long as the petitioner operates his manufacturing

Unit in strict and implicit compliance of all the licenses

obtained by him, respondents 3 to 5 cannot cause any

obstruction, though they are entitled to invoke and pursue all

their legal remedies, as may be available in law.

6. In the case at hand, I notice that one of the

conditions that has been imposed against the petitioner by the WPC 12597/20

competent Authority is that he shall not operate the Unit

between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The interim order granted by this

Court on 24.09.2020 also takes this into account and the

petitioner has been directed therein not to carry on loading and

unloading activities and transportation between sunset and

sunrise.

In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition,

confirming the interim order dated 24.09.2020; with a

consequential direction to the 2nd respondent - Station House

Officer to afford adequate and effective protection to the

petitioner and his employees, provided no loading and

unloading activities or transportation of the articles are

undertaken between sunset and sunrise, and as long as he

complies with every other condition as is imposed upon him,

under the various consents and licenses obtained.

Needless to say, respondents 3 to 5 are left with all liberty

to invoke and pursue their legal remedies against any of the WPC 12597/20

consents obtained by the petitioner or against any action from

his side, which they may perceive to be contrary to law.

Sd/-

RR                                   DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                            JUDGE
 WPC 12597/20


                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12597/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1            TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE

ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 26.12.2016.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 1.1.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MANJERI DATED 19.2.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE OORNGATTIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 2.5.2018.

RESPONDENTS' EXTS:

ANNEXURE R2 (A) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IAPS NO.55925/20 (GLNO.162/20)

ANNEXURE R2 (B) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 08.05.2020 OF THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 08.05.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 08.05.2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 08.05.2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.03.2020 BEFORE THE SECRETARY, URANGATTIRI PANCHAYAT

EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED WPC 12597/20

28.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, URANGATTIRI PANCHAYATH

EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 11.05.2020

EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI DATED 09.06.2020