GEM GRANITES Vs. DEPUTY SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the police may be directed to grant protection to the quarrying operations in the petitioner s property, for which it has obtained quarrying lease from the Director of Mining and Geology, as evident from Exts. P1 and P2 proceedings of the said officer. The respondents resisted the application, contending that the petitioner does not have the statutory licences/clearances under other relevant statutes and therefore, it is not entitled to do any quarrying. That being so, according to them, its prayer for police protection is untenable. But, according to the petitioner, once it has got the lease under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, nothing more is required to run the quarry. The above dispute is the point that arises for decision in this case.

(2.) The brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioner are the following: The petitioner firm, represented by its Manager, submits that it is engaged in the quarrying, transportation and exporting of Dimension and Decorative Stones. The quarrying is done using the mechanical devices of "Diamond Wire Saw" and "Wedge and Feather". It is not using any explosives. Dimension stones quarried are huge granite blocks having a size of 2 to 3 cubic metres and weighing about 10 to 15 tonnes. The quarrying operation is undertaken by expert workers, using mechanical devices. The said unit has an Excavator, two Air Compressors, Wire Saw Cutting devices, Cranes and 250 KWA Generator Sets. The quarrying is undertaken, based on the permission granted by the Director of Mining and Geology, as per Exts. P1 and P2 permits. The petitioner has executed a mining lease agreement with the Government on 8-1 -2007 valid up to 7-1 -2017. Rs. 4000/- is paid per cubic metre of granite towards royalty and other charges. The quarry is located in two plots of land having an extent of 0.88 hectare in Sy. No, 521 /11 and 0.4058 hectare in R.S. No. 525/ 3 of Perumkadavila Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. The granite blocks are transported to the factory of the petitioner at Chennai. They are sliced into slabs, polished and thereafter exported. The petitioner is engaging 13 workmen from Tamil Nadu, to do the work in the quarry. A list of those persons is produced as Ext. P3. It has also engaged four unskilled workers from the local area as Watchman and Helpers. The petitioner commenced operation of the quarry on 5-3-2007. While so, respondents 4 to 44 came to the quarry, demanding work. When the petitioner did not yield to their demand, they trespassed into the quarry on 27-11-2007 and obstructed the quarrying operations. The petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation before the 1 st respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police to remove the obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 44. But, the police did not take any action taking shelter behind the plea that they cannot interfere in a labour dispute. In view of the above position, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The 1st respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a statement, opposing the claim of the petitioner for police protection. It is submitted therein that the petitioner is running the quarry without taking necessary licence from the local Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the Perumkadavila Gram Panchayat had filed C.C. No. 949/ 2003 before Judicial First Class Magistrate s Court I, Neyyattinkara, alleging offences punishable under Sections 232, 233 and 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is submitted that Crl. M.C. No. 2072/2004 was filed before this Court to quash that complaint. The said Crl. M.C. was dismissed by this Court by Annexure--R1(a) order. In the said order, it was held that the petitioner therein was not entitled to run the quarry in violation of Sections 232, 233 and 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The 1st respondent has also submitted that the petitioner was running a quarry in the very same site about seven years back. The respondents 4 to 44 were the workers of the above said quarry. Now, when the quarry started functioning again, those workers came demanding re-employment. It is a pure labour dispute. Therefore, the police did not interfere in the matter, it is submitted.