Kerala High Court
Zehub Technopark Pvt.Ltd vs District Police Chief on 6 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5556 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ZEHUB TECHNOPARK PVT.LTD, MOUNT ZION BUILDING
KUMBUZHA JUNCTION, KUMBUZHA. P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SAMUEL
ABRAHAM., PIN - 689645
2 SAMUEL ABRAHAM, AGED 47 YEARS, DIRECTOR, ZEHUB
TECHNOPARK PVT.LTD, MOUNT ZION BUILDING, KUMBUZHA
JUNCTION, KUMBUZHA. P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689645
BY ADV JESTIN MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM (RURAL), ASHRAMAM ROAD,
KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691001
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION,
KUNNIKODE.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691508
3 RAJENDRAN PILLAI, PROPERITOR ,SREELEKHMI BRICKS AND
INTERLOCKS, KUNNIKODE, PATTAZHI ROAD,KOLLOORMUKKU,
PATTAZHI. P.O, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691522
4 THAMPI.K.CHERIAN, MADHURA MALATHEKKECHARUVIL,
PUTHANVEEDU, PANTHAPLAVU, PATTAZHI.P.O,PATHANAPURAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691522
*5 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695001.
*6 CHAIRMAN, KOLLAM ZEHUB TECHOPARK PRIVATE LIMITED,
SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691013,
(DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM)
WPC 5556/24
2
*7 KOLLAM ZEHUB TECHOPARK PRIVATE LIMITED,
SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CONVENOR, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT
INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM, PIN-691002.
[ADDL.R5 TO R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
06.03.2024 IN I.A-1/2024 IN WP(C) 5556/2024]
BY ADVS.
RESMI A.- R3
M.V.SABU - R4
ALEXANDER JOSEPH
AKHILASREE BHASKARAN
ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC 5556/24
3
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is stated to be a Company registered under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and the 2 nd petitioner
to be its Director. They say that they have a property which is
exclusively owned by them and have produced Exts.P1 to P4 in
substantiation. They assert that since the land is a 'Garden Land',
classified as 'purayidom' in Exts.P1 to P4, they applied for and
obtained a Development Permit under the 'Private Industrial Estate
Scheme', to establish an industry, which has been granted. They
say that Ext.P5 is the said permit, as per which, they are expected
to complete construction within two years from November 2023.
2. The petitioners say that they started construction in
terms of Ext.P5, but that respondents 3 and 4 - who are the
residents of the locality, started creating obstructions making
untenable demands which could not be acceded to. They assert
that they are fully justified in making the construction, because
Ext.P9 notification of the Government establishes that the area is
an 'Industrial Estate' and not a rubber plantation as alleged by the
party respondents; and hence that they sought for protection from
the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer, through Ext.P6, but
that no assistance was given thereupon, consequent to which, they
preferred another complaint before the 1 st respondent - District
Police Chief, namely Ext.P8. They allege that, in spite of Exts.P6
and P8, threats and intimidation from the party respondents
continue unabated and that their employees are now unable to
carry on the work; and therefore, that they have been constrained
to approach this Court through this Writ Petition.
3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Jestin
Mathew - learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Resmi A -
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, submitted that this Writ
Petition has been filed by the petitioners suppressing valid and
vital facts, including that the area where the construction is sought
to be caused is a rubber plantation, which has not yet been
validly and legally converted. She added that, what the petitioners
now propose is to establish a 'red category industry', which will
cause deleterious consequences to the entire area; and therefore,
that her client has filed WP(C)No.15659/2024 before this Court,
which is still pending. She concluded her submissions saying that,
since her client has already initiated legal action against the
petitioners, he had no requirement of having caused any threat to
them and that all such allegations are self-serving and intended to
misdirect this Court. She, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition
be dismissed, contending that the petitioners cannot cause any
construction in the area in question on account of the afore
reasons.
4. Sri.M.V.Sabu - learned counsel for the 4th respondent,
adopted the afore submissions of Smt.Resmi A., supplementing it
by asserting that the attempt of the petitioner is to circumvent the
processes of law and to cause construction in violation of the
statutory Scheme, under the guise of 'Police Protection' orders to
be obtained from this Court. He added that his client has not
caused any threats or intimidation to the petitioners, nor does he
intend to do so; and therefore, that the allegations to the contrary
are malicious. He also thus prayed that this Writ Petition be
dismissed.
5. Smt.Rekha C. Nair - learned Senior Government
Pleader, submitted that, the Police are now in a piquant situation
because, on one side, the petitioners say that they are making
construction on the strength of Ext.P5 Development Permit; while,
the party respondents say that a construction of that kind cannot
be done in the area which is a rubber plantation. She submitted
that the Police cannot intervene into the issue, nor can they speak
affirmatively on either side and therefore, that they have taken
steps to ensure that law and order is maintained in the area and
the lives of the 2nd petitioner, employees of the 1st petitioner, as
also the party respondents are sufficiently protected, not having
been subjected to any threat, on account of the internecine
disputes between them. She prayed that this Writ Petition be
ordered on such terms.
6. I have examined the various materials available on
record, on the touchstone of the submissions made at the Bar.
7. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Government
Pleader, the petitioners on one side assert their right to make the
construction on the strength of Ext.P5; while the party respondents
say that such a construction is impermissible on account of the
alleged tenure of the land. These are not issues this Court can
intervene, while acting under 226 of the Constitution of India - it
being squarely in the realm of facts; while, I cannot permit the
Police either to do so since it is not within their province. As far
as the Police are concerned, they are only expected to maintain
law and order and ensure that the internecine disputes between
the parties do not degenerate into law and order issues. Since the
learned Senior Government Pleader says that this is already being
done, I am without doubt that this Court will be justified in
disposing of this Writ Petition on such terms.
Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition, without entering into
the merits of any of the rival contentions and leaving them all
open; with a consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent -
Station House Officer to ensure that the lives of the 2 nd petitioner,
employees of the 1st petitioner, as also that of the party
respondents, are adequately and effectively protected from each
other; none of them being allowed to take law into their hands, or
commit any act in breach of peace.
It is specified that this Court has not entered into any of the
rival disputes, including the tenor of the land or its nature and
that they are left open to be decided by the competent
Forum/Court.
Needless to say, as far as the parties are concerned, their
remedies before the appropriate Forum/Court or for settlement are
fully left open.
Solely by way of reiterated clarity, I order that the Police
will only maintain peace and protect the lives of the parties
without entering into the internecine disputes between them, since
the liberty of the parties to invoke remedies and pursue those
which have already invoked are fully left open.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5556/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
1254/1/2022 DATED 28.10.2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.1255/1/2022 DATED 28.10.2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
08.03.2023 REMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
COMPANY
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.02.2024 REMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
COMPANY
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE DEVELOPER PERMIT DATED 15.11.2023
NO.DIC/2323/2023-ID1 ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10.02.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
10.02.2024 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10.02.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO(P)
NO.11/2024/ID DATED 03/02/2024 ISSUED BY
THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
