M/S. Rds-Cvcc (Jv) vs Superintendent Of Police

P.V.Kunhikrishnan,J.

Above writ petition is filed with following reliefs:-

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the first respondent to provide adequate protection to the petitioner, its staff, other workers,

vehicles and construction materials in the property covered by Exhibit P3 at Pathanapuram from the illegal acts of the respondents 5 to 11;

ii. Issue writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P4 & P5 complaints of the petitioner and to provide police

proteciton to the petitioner, its staff, other workers, vehicles and construction materials in the property covered by Exhibit P3 at the Pathanapuram from the

illegal acts of the respondents 5 to 11;

iii. Issue writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the first respondent to ensure that the respondents 5 to 11 and their men are not causing any

obstruction to the loading and unloading of the fencing materials and fencing the perimeter of the property covered by Exhibit P3.â€​

When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 21.01.2021, this Court passed the following order:-

“Notice issued to the respondents 5, 6 and 9 returned with an endorsement 'unserved'.

Petitioner to take fresh steps to serve notice in the correct address of the said respondents.

Notice issued to respondents 10 and 11 returned with an endorsement 'refused'. Hence, service of notice on respondents 10 and 11 is declared as complete.

The learned counsel for the respondents 7 and 8 seeks time to file counter affidavit. The learned counsel would also point out that, on the cover of the interim

order, the petitioner is undertaking development activities without a valid development permit.

Post on 09.02.2021.

It is made clear that the interim order granted in this writ petition to maintain the law and order will not make the petitioner to undertake any development

activities, without a valid development permit.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not undertaking any development activities. The said submission is recorded.

The learned Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions.â€​

Thereafter this Court passed another order on 22.02.2021, which is extracted hereunder:-

“Heard Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Harish Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents

and the learned Government Pleader.

When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is yet to get a licence from the local authority and

in that view of the matter, his only request is to interdict the respondents 5 to 11 and their men from obstructing the fencing of the property, which they have taken

on lease on the strength of Ext.P3 lease deed.

The learned Government Pleader submits that the Panchayath is not in the array of parties and based on instructions from the police it is submitted that the

people of the locality have been agitating against the attempt of the petitioner to put up a hot mix plant near to a school and in an area which is densely

populated.

The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that without obtaining statutory permits and licenses, the petitioner cannot start the

functioning of the hot mix plant. However, it is fairly submitted that they cannot legitimately object to the construction of the fencing.

Petitioner shall implead the local authority and shall also produce a sketch of the property showing its mode of access to the nearby road and the location of

the school.

Post on 25.2.2021.

The interim order dated 13.1.2021 as modified by order dated 21.1.2021 shall continue for a period of one week.â€​

Subsequently, on 31.03.2021 this Court passed the following order:-

“By order dated 01.03.2021, notice was issued to the proposed 12th respondent, the Pathanapuram Panchayat. The notice has not returned after service.

Smt.Ummul Fida, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that W.P.(C).No.5192 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the

Pathanapuram Panchayat to consider the application for development permit and the said writ petition is pending. The learned counsel requests that the petitioner be

permitted to serve notice on the counsel appearing for the Panchayat in the said case.

The petitioner shall serve a copy of the writ petition to the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat in W.P.(C).No.5192 of 2021 and file a memo.

Post on 07.04.2021. Interim order will stand extended till then. The petitioner may continue with the fencing activities as ordered by order dated 22.02.2021.â€​

Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the Panchayath already

dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner for development permit and building permit.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has not received a copy of the same. The learned counsel submitted that, the interim order

is only to the effect that the petitioner can construct fencing in his property. The counsel submitted that there is now threat from the contesting

respondents and others even to enter the property by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the above contentions are absolutely incorrect. The only grievance of the

contesting respondent is that, the petitioner cannot do development activities without permission from the statutory authorities. The learned counsel for

the respondents submitted that, there is no threat to the petitioner from the contesting respondents as alleged. But the learned counsel submitted that

this Court may make it clear that the petitioner cannot do any activities in the property without getting development and building permit from the local

authorities.

The learned Government Pleader also submitted that, the petitioner cannot do any development activities in the property without getting permission

from the local authorities and other statutory authorities. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the intention of the petitioner is to

construct a hot mixing unit, for which permission is necessary from Pollution Control Board and other statutory authorities.

In the light of the above contentions, I think this Court cannot grant police protection to the petitioner and his workers for construction activities in

the property. But the interim order to the effect that the petitioner can construct fencing to his property can continue. But in the guise of that order, the

petitioner cannot do any development activities in his property. Protection to the life of the petitioner and his workers also can be granted. Therefore,

this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:-

1) If there is any threat to the life of the petitioner and his workers, the petitioner can approach the Station House Officer concerned with a representation.

2) If such a representation is received, the Station House Officer will do the needful to protect the life of the petitioner and his workers.

3) The petitioner can construct fencing in his property. If there is any objection from the contesting respondents, the petitioner can approach the police authority and

police will do the needful to see that the petitioner complete the construction of fencing to his property. But I make it clear that, under the guise of this order the

petitioner cannot do any other development activities in the property without getting licence/ permit from the statutory authorities.