W.P. (C) Nos. 8672, 11729, 14206 and 13617 of 2014. Case: Suresh Kunnath Vs Commissioner of Police. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) Nos. 8672, 11729, 14206 and 13617 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Bechu Kurian Thomas and Rony Jose, Advs. and For Respondents: P.I. Davis, Government Pleader and Biju Balakrishnan, Adv. |
| Judges | Ashok Bhushan, Actg. C.J. and A. M. Shaffique, J. |
| Issue | Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 15, 19, 3; Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 80 |
| Judgement Date | August 22, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Ashok Bhushan, Actg. C.J.
-
The above four writ petitions praying for police protection had been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
-
First two writ petitions have been filed by petitioners who are owners of lorries which are hired by quarry owners for the purpose of transportation of rocks and other materials from the quarry site. Third and fourth writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who themselves are quarry owners quarrying rocks and other materials which are being transported by lorries. The facts of W.P. (C) No. 8672 of 2014 are noted in detail, which shall be sufficient for deciding all these writ petitions.
-
W.P. (C) No. 8672 of 2014 has been filed by three petitioners who claimed to be members of All Kerala Lorry Owners Association. Second petitioner claims to be the President of the Association. The Association owns several lorries which have been hired by various people including the quarry owners situated in Mookkunnimala, Thiruvananthapuram. There are only two access roads to reach Mookkunnimala; they are Edakode-Mookkunnimala and Malayam-Mookkunnimala. Objections were raised, by the people residing nearby the quarries, against the operation of quarries as well as transportation of quarried materials by lorries. Respondents 4 to 6 in W.P. (C) No. 8672 of 2014 have raised protest with regard to the movement of lorries through the public road. Protest of respondents were both against the operation of quarries as well as plying of lorries on the two roads leading to quarries at Mookkunnimala. Petitioners submitted a compliant on 15.01.2014 to Sub Inspector of Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that lorries are not permitted to enter the quarry site, as the people has obstructed the path of the lorries. Effective police protection for lorries, for transporting through the above roads, was sought for in the complaint. Another complaint was submitted on 17.03.2014 before the Circle Inspector of Police. Petitioners, thereafter, filed W.P. (C) No. 8672 of 2014 praying for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the plying of all lorries of the petitioners carrying goods through the Edakode-Mookkunnimala-Malayam road without any obstruction or any other illegal acts from respondents 4 to 6 or anybody acting under or through them.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the drivers of petitioners' lorries.
iii. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
W.P. (C) No. 11729 of 2014 has been filed by the sole petitioner, Sri. N. Satheesh Kumar, who claims to be the owner of several lorries plying for quarries at Mookkunnimala through the above mentioned two roads. Alleging obstruction by respondents 4 to 7 in the said writ petition, a petition was submitted on 15.04.2014 to the Sub Inspector of Police. Petitioner thereafter filed the writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection for the plying of all the lorries of the petitioner carrying goods through the aforesaid roads.
-
W.P. (C) No. 14206 of 2014 has been filed by Southern Granite Industries, alleging that petitioners have been granted quarry lease dated 30.04.2010 consent to operate the unit by Pollution Control Board has also been referred to including the Panchayat license dated 04.04.2014. Petitioner company claims that they have engaged various lorries for transporting the materials quarried from the site. It is alleged that objectors including respondents 4 to 9 in the said writ petition have blocked the roads and stopped the vehicular movement. A Petition was also submitted by petitioner before Circle Inspector of Police on 27.05.2014. Petitioner filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for the smooth conduct of its quarrying business including plying of all lorries carrying goods through the road leading towards petitioner's quarrying site without any obstruction or any other illegal acts from respondents 4 to 9 or anybody acting under or through them.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the drivers of Petitioner's Lorries.
iii. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
W.P. (C) No. 13617 of 2014 has been filed by another quarry owner who claims to have obtained necessary licenses for mining. It was alleged that people from Ward No. 20 of Pallichal Grama Panchayat have obstructed the vehicular traffic without any justification. Petitioner claims to have filed a complaint to Sub Inspector of Police. Thereafter he filed the writ petition seeking mandamus restraining the private respondents 5 to 8 from preventing free movement of vehicular traffic.
-
In W.P. (C) No. 8672 of 2014 a Division Bench of this Court on 01.04.2014 had passed an order, which is to the following effect:
Petitioners are only owners of lorries. They say that they are engaged in plying vehicles which are meant for hire and for transport. The real problem is that there are different quarries in an area called Mookkunnimala and there are two access roads through which rubble mined out of these quarries can be moved out. Even the photographs produced by the petitioners show that the lorries may not be few in number. While the petitioners say that the quarry owners have agreed to rectify the PWD road, in the absence of the quarry owners on the array, it is not appropriate to decide on such a matter. The learned Government Pleader says that the ground reality is that the heavy movement of lorries tends to affect the PWD roads. That is a matter which the Government has to consider within its executive wisdom when it decides to give quarry permits. The District Collector and the Commissioner of Police can necessarily find out ways and means to regulate the movements of lorry traffic with least inconvenience to local public. Under such circumstances, it is directed that the learned Government Pleader will...
To continue reading
Request your trial