A.M. ANTONY Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner contends that he is running a quarry on the strength of licenses/permissions required under different statutes. Ext.P1 is the licence dated 03.05.2014, issued by local authority. Meanwhile, respondents 4 and 5 and persons under them obstructed the work, raising protest mainly against deployment of machinery for loading and unloading operations being carried out in the petitioner's quarry.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has every right to make use of machinery and pursue the quarrying operations. There is no denial of work to any of the workers actually engaged by the petitioner. Describing all his grievances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 complaint before 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent has not taken any proper action, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present petition.