AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant police protection for the smooth functioning of the industrial unit of the petitioner. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a small scale industrial unit, running at South Vazhakkulam, near Aluva. There are some properties in the name of the son of the petitioner adjacent to the industrial unit of the petitioner. On 30.7.2012, some persons in the area trespassed into the compound of the said industrial unit, shouted some slogans and then closed the gate with lock and threatened that the industrial unit will not be allowed to function and the workers will not be allowed to enter into the compound of the unit. On enquiry, petitioner was told that the authorities of the Municipality had dumped the waste of vegetables in the adjacent property of the industrial unit which is owned by the son of the petitioner. It is alleged that the said situation is created under the leadership of respondents 3 and 4 to extract money from the petitioner. Petitioner contacted the Municipal Authority and told them not to dump waste in the adjacent property and thereafter the Municipality has stopped the act of dumping waste. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not object dumping of waste in the properties adjacent to his industrial unit for the reason that the said areas are remaining unutilized for the last several years and, therefore, the facility to dump the waste of vegetables in the said property will be a social help and will provide some convenience to the Municipality. It is stated that the persons who have objections can seek remedies against dumping of the waste. It is the contention of the petitioner that the dumping of waste being done by the fifth respondent Municipality in the adjacent property of the industrial unit which is owned by his son, has nothing to do with the functioning of the industrial unit.
Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 3 and 4, wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:
There is suppression of real facts. Petitioner is trying to re- claim the land of his son by dumping waste in the said property. The dumping of waste causes severe nuisance in the locality and the people of the locality have made complaints before the Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat. By Ext.R3(a), the Panchayat directed the petitioner to remove the waste within seven days. Ext.R3(b) is a similar letter issued to the petitioner''s son. Without complying with Exts.R3(a) and R3(b), the petitioner has approached this Court. Behind the back of dumping of waste by the fifth respondent, the petitioner''s son is trying to reclaim paddy field. The said property is a paddy field as per the village records. Ext.R3(c) purports to be a mass complaint before the District Collector. The vehicles carrying waste are dumping the waste after entering into the compound of the industrial unit of the petitioner.
Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit, inter alia, stating that false complaints are filed after filing of the Writ Petition. Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) are issued without any enquiry or any basis. Ext.R3(c) is a false and fabricated complaint. Petitioner''s son is abroad and Ext.R3(b) is not served on him. It is stated that there is no human habitation within a radius of about half a kilometre from the alleged place of dumping and about sixty acres of land in the area including the property of the petitioner''s son has been lying substantially as waste land for more than forty years. There has not been any paddy cultivation in any portion of the said land at any point of time, much less, for the last about forty years. His son has never attempted to reclaim the land.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality, besides the learned Government Pleader.
Learned counsel for the Municipality would submit that on telephonic information, the position is that the Municipality has not dumped any waste. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that whatever be the proceedings initiated by the Panchayat, it relates to the property of the son of the petitioner and it should not enable the party respondents to obstruct the functioning of the industrial unit in the petitioner''s land. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would submit that actually vehicles are being taken through the property of the petitioner and dumping is being done to fill up the paddy field in the name of the petitioner''s son. Learned Government Pleader would submit that municipal waste was dumped in the adjacent land belonging to the petitioner''s son. Further, the Municipal Authorities dumped soil in view of the complaint by the people of the area. As far as the working of the industrial unit of the petitioner is concerned, the police authorities are prepared to give protection. We are of the view that it may not be open to the party respondents to obstruct the functioning of the industrial unit. There is no case for the party respondents that the petitioner''s unit is functioning in an illegal manner otherwise. We notice the stand of the party respondents 3 and 4 that they are not obstructing the running of the unit, but they are only objecting to the dumping of waste.
In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
As long as the petitioner has the required permission for running the unit and if there is any obstruction by respondents 3 and 4, the police authority will provide protection for the running of the industrial unit of the petitioner as against respondents 3 and 4. But, we make it crystal clear that the police will ensure, also that there will be no filling up of the land in question, if it is a paddy land, or any illegal activity of the nature alleged by respondents 3 and 4 in the petitioner''s land or in the petitioner''s son''s land and this order of police protection will not be used for the said purpose. We also leave it open to the Panchayat authorities to proceed in terms of Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) and also leave it open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions as against the same.