Kerala High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the police authorities to provide protection to him and the team of National Institute of Technology, Karnataka (‘NITK’), to conduct the survey for assessing the fitness of the leased land in order top start quarrying activities, a Single Judge Bench of N. Nagaresh, J., while upholding the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on any trade, occupation or business of his choice, directed the authorities concerned to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and the survey team till the inspection was complete.
Background:
The petitioner was an entrepreneur, who proposed to start quarry activities in a land obtained by him on lease. When the petitioner applied to the District Geologist for permission, he was informed that there was a water tank belonging to the Kerala Water Authority (‘KWA’) located within 110 meters from the quarrying site and therefore permission could be granted only on production of a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) from the KWA. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a Single Judge.
Aggrieved by the Single Judge’s order, he approached the Division Bench of this Court in Sobin P.K. v. District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 5491, that held that mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometer of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority, or any other authority without any prior written permission, was not permissible. In the case in hand, the water tank was maintained by the KWA, and it would certainly fall under the expression in Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003, to include the KWA also. The Division Bench therefore dismissed the appeal.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court, filing another petition, seeking to conduct a scientific study by the Geological Survey of India (‘GSI’). The KWA agreed to conduct the study at the expense of the petitioner. The GSI conducted a study and submitted its report which stated that the proposed quarrying site was not vulnerable to landslides and no settlements or schools, colleges, hospitals or other important towns were located within 200 meters of the quarry boundary and declared that the site appeared suitable for quarrying activities.
As further study was required to assess the impact of the proposed quarry on the water tank of the KWA, the petitioner approached the NITK to conduct a scientific study in the proposed area and paid Rs 2,36,000 on 27-06-2024. When the petitioner along with the inspection team of NITK approached the quarrying site, Respondent 4 and his men prevented them from conducting the inspection. The Technical Team from the NITK was not permitted to enter the premises and the petitioner was attacked. The petitioner alleged that the party respondents were attempting to get rid of him to start the quarrying operations themselves, but they contended that if quarrying operations were conducted by the petitioner, it would damage the water tank owned by the KWA.
The petitioner approached police authorities and requested to extend adequate police protection, but the police remained unresponsive, compelling the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking to direct the competent authorities to give effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner and the scientific survey team of the NITK in conducting inspection and study in the proposed quarrying land. The petitioner submitted that he would face huge financial loss and hardship by the action of Respondent 4 and his henchman and stated that official respondents were duty bound to act upon his complaints.
Respondent 4 contended that no quarrying activities could be allowed in the proposed site as it was a plantation land. Further, the KWA submitted that upon the study conducted by the GSI, it was recommended that a new water tank should be constructed considering that the existing tank was 20 years old. The people of Pallarimangalam Panchayat and Kavalangad Panchayat were fully or partly dependent on the KWA for their daily needs and since the existing tank was not adequate, another tank of 2.5 LL was proposed under Jal Jeevan Mission and the work was under progress in the vicinity.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court opined that in our country governed by rule of law, every citizen had a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law following the provisions of law and whether such an avocation or business was to be permitted or not, was for the competent authorities under the State to decide. The Court noted that the petitioner wanted to conduct a study by the NITK in order to obtain necessary NOCs and permissions for starting quarrying operations.
The Court observed that Respondent 4 or anyone claiming under him could not take law into their hand and obstruct such study and if they used physical force, the police authorities were bound to protect the petitioner, provided the activity was not prohibited by law. The failure of the police authorities to provide such protection would offend the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Court directed the authorities concerned to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and the scientific survey team of NITK in conducting inspection and study in the proposed quarrying land.
[Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5206, decided on 16-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vijay Sankar V.H., Mintu Cheriyan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: P.M. Joshi, Peeyus A. Kottam, Siji K. Paul, Bonny Baby, Sruthi Sunilkumar, C. Gokulkrishnan, V.V. Joshi, Advocates and Dheeraj A.S., Government Pleader.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
