A.A. Ali vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 February, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2291 of 2007(W)


1. A.A. ALI, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. A.A. PAREED, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. SIBY, S/O. JOSE,

4. MATHACHAN, S/O. AUGUSTINE,

5. PETER, S/O. PAPPACHAN,

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

7. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

8. THE GEOLOGIST,

9. MALAYATTOOR-NEELESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

10. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :06/02/2007

 O R D E R
       J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

                       -------------------------------

                 W.P.(C).NO.2291 OF 2007 (W)

                    -----------------------------------

         Dated this the 6th day of  February, 2007


                             J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,J.

This is a petition for police protection. According to the

petitioner, petitioner has got all the required licence including

licence from the Panchayat, Geologist and consent from the

Pollution Control Board. The contention of the contesting

respondents is that quarrying is done beyond the licensed

premises. In the above circumstances, police is directed to

grant protection, provided, quarrying is done only from seven

ares of property specifically mentioned in Ext.P6 and all the

conditions of the licence and consent are carried out. However,

police should see that quarrying is not conducted beyond seven

ares of property and if explosives are used that should be

licensed and it should be done strictly according to the

conditions imposed by the Director of explosives. If the

petitioner applies for further licence, it is for the licencing

W.P.(C).2291/2007 2

authority to consider the same after considering the

contentions of the neighbouring parties and that should be

decided untrammeled by any of the observations herein.

However, if the respondents have got any further grievances, it

is for them to approach the statutory authorities. With the

above observations this writ petition is disposed of.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

prp

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

——————————————————–

O.P.NO. OF 2006 ()

———————————————————

J U D G M E N T

———————————————————

1th January, 2007