BY AD v. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL

BY ADVS. M.RAJENDRAN NAIR – R3 to R5 M.SANTHY SRI. T.NAVEEN – SC R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 4001/24 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner says that, on the basis of Ext.P1 Letter of Intent issued by the Director of Mining and Geology, Ext.P1(a) Environmental Clearance and Ext.P1(c) Trade License issued by the Grama Panchayat, they intend to start preparatory and preliminary works, through which, eventually a Stone Quarrying Unit will be set up. They concede that they have not obtained Mining Permit or a Quarrying Permit, undertaking that they will not engage in any such activities until such time as they receive it as per law; but that for obtaining such, they will have to keep the land ready, as also to make small constructions thereon, which, again they say, they intend to do only as per law.

2. The petitioner alleges that even for the afore activities, they are obstructed from entering into their property by the party respondents; and that, therefore, they were constrained to approach the 2nd respondent – Station House Officer, through Ext.P2 representation seeking protection. They allege that, however, no action has been taken thereon; and hence that they are left without WPC 4001/24 4 any option, but to approach this Court through this Writ Petition.

3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Rony Jose – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Rajendran Nair – learned counsel for the party respondents, submitted that his clients are not causing any physical obstruction to the employees of the petitioner from entering into the property or engaging in any activities which are legal. He submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is to start quarrying and mining operations, even without obtaining proper licences and solely on the basis of Ext.P1 - which is only a Letter of Intent; and hence that this Writ Petition is an abuse of process. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed, leaving liberty to his clients to invoke every available remedy open to them.

4. Sri.T.Naveen – learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent – Pollution Control Board, conceded that his client has already issued Ext.P1 Consent to the petitioner, but that he has no further comment to make because, they themselves admit that they have not obtained any Quarrying or Mining Permit as of now.

5. Smt.Rekha C. Nair – learned Government Pleader, WPC 4001/24 5 submitted that the Police have already taken note of Ext.P2 complaint of the petitioner and are offering adequate protection to them, as long as they act as per law and on the strength of all valid licenses. She added that the Police cannot assist the petitioner in their quarrying or mining activities and that their remedies in that regard will have to be worked out before the competent Authorities.

6. When I evaluate and consider the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that the assistance of Police cannot be used by the petitioner to carry on their business activities. The Police authorities can only ensure that the lives of the petitioner’s employees are protected from any untoward incident or acts of violence and that law and order is maintained in the site in question.

7. In such perspective, when the petitioner says that they have not obtained Quarrying or Mining Permits, obviously, they cannot carry on any such activities. They, however, say that they only want to enter into the property and make it ready for future expansion and this is not opposed by the learned counsel for the WPC 4001/24 6 party respondents either. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition to the limited extent of directing the 2nd respondent – Station House Officer, to ensure that the lives of the petitioner and his employees are adequately protected from every threat and intimidation from any person, including the party respondents; and that law and order is maintained in the area, without any of the party respondents being allowed to take law into their hands, or commit any action in violation of peace. I, however, clarify that the Police are not expected to verify documents and decide whether the petitioner can carry out any activity and it is for them to invoke such remedies before the competent Court/Forum. However, should there be any violation of law and order, the Police will intervene and ensure that the parties are not allowed to do so, by causing registration of Crimes and such other, if found so warranted. As far as the party respondents are concerned, they are at liberty to initiate and pursue their remedies, as may be available in law, before the appropriate Forum/Courts; for which purpose, WPC 4001/24 7 their contentions are left open. RR Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WPC 4001/24 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4001/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P1(a) Exhibit P1(b) Exhibit P1(c) Exhibit P2 Exhibit P2(a) RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3-1 Exhibit R3-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 28.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NUMBERED AS 78/Q/2022 DTD. 20.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE SEIAA. TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE VALID TILL 19.07.2027 ISSUED BY THE PCB. TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENCE VALID TILL 19.07.2027 ISSUED BY THE CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29.01.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION. TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. the true copy of the notification through visual media The true copy of the complaint submitted to different departments