Police Inaction Against Obstruction Of Quarry Operations Violates Article 19(1)(g) | Kerala High Court Orders Protection For Lessee After Vigilante Blockade Of Scientific Survey Near Water Tank
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh held that any citizen engaged in a lawful activity, including preparation for business or industrial operation compliant with the law, is entitled to protection from obstruction by unlawful means. The Court directed the concerned police authorities to provide adequate protection to the petitioner and the scientific team from the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Surathkal, enabling them to conduct an inspection at the proposed quarry site. The Court stated that when lawful actions are obstructed by private individuals, law enforcement has a duty to uphold the constitutional right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, Sobin P K, aged 52, residing at Kuzhoor, Ernakulam District, leased certain lands in Kuttamangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, Ernakulam District, for quarrying activities. The lands in question were comprised in Survey Nos. 306/1A/185/10/12, 46, 47, 52, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82A. Upon approaching the District Geologist for permission, the petitioner was informed that a water tank owned by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) was situated within 110 metres of the proposed quarry site. Consequently, permission could only be granted upon obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the KWA.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No.33938/2017, which was dismissed. On appeal in W.A. No.451/2018, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision, stating that any quarrying operation using explosives within one kilometre of a government-controlled water structure required prior written permission.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.25341/2020 seeking a scientific study of the site to assess the impact of quarrying. The Court directed such a study upon payment of requisite fees by the petitioner. The Geological Survey of India (GSI) conducted the study and submitted a report dated 12/01/2024. The report stated that the proposed quarrying site was not vulnerable to landslides and that the area was suitable for such activities, subject to certain precautions.
The report noted that the quarry site was located in an area classified under NLSM Priority Area-II, indicating relatively lower landslide susceptibility. It also recorded that the existing water tank, with a capacity of 2.2 lakh litres and constructed about 20 years ago, should ideally be reconstructed with a vibration-resistant design. The report suggested that additional studies be undertaken to evaluate the effect of blasting on the water tank and the stability of surrounding slopes.
In accordance with these recommendations, the petitioner approached the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Surathkal, Karnataka, and paid a fee of ₹2,36,000 on 27/06/2024 for further scientific inspection. On 02/07/2024, the petitioner, along with the NIT team, attempted to inspect the site, but was obstructed by the 4th respondent, Aju, and his associates. The team was not permitted to enter, and the petitioner was reportedly attacked, later seeking treatment at the General Hospital, Muvattupuzha.
Despite filing a petition (Exhibit P6) with the police, no assistance was extended. The petitioner asserted that this obstruction caused financial loss and hardship, and that effective police protection was necessary to facilitate the inspection, which was a prerequisite for obtaining statutory clearances.
The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit asserting that quarrying could not be conducted in plantation land and citing the Division Bench's judgment in W.A. No.451/2018. The affidavit stated that the water tank maintained by the KWA fell within the protective ambit of Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. It was also pointed out that a new water tank was proposed within 50 metres of the site, making the quarry operation potentially damaging to public infrastructure.
The Kerala Water Authority (6th respondent) filed a counter affidavit detailing that, under the Jal Jeevan Mission, a new 2.5 lakh litre capacity water tank was sanctioned on 18/09/2021. The project, sanctioned for ₹3,447 lakhs, aimed to supply drinking water to 12 wards across two panchayats. Construction was underway, with 60% physical progress and 50% fund utilisation. This included construction of two tanks and pipe laying across 76 kilometers. One tank had already been completed.
It was further submitted that in W.P.(C) No.31245/2023, the petitioner had also challenged the construction of the water tank. That matter was pending before the High Court.
Justice N. Nagaresh made detailed observations on the facts and legal issues involved in the matter.
"In our country governed by Rule of Law, every citizen has a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law, following the provisions of law. Whether such an avocation/business is to be permitted or not, is for the competent authorities under the State to decide."
Referring to the petitioner’s efforts to obtain clearances, the Court recorded: "The petitioner wants to conduct a study by the 5th respondent in order to obtain necessary NOCs and Permissions for starting quarrying operations."
On the obstruction faced, the Court noted: "The 4th respondent or anyone claiming under him cannot take law into their hand and obstruct such study. If the 4th respondent uses physical force, the police authorities are bound to protect the petitioner as long as the activity is not prohibited by law, the failure of which will offend the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India."
The Court referred to the findings of the Geological Survey of India and acknowledged the need for a follow-up study by NIT, Surathkal. The obstruction of this inspection by private individuals, despite police complaints, was viewed as a denial of lawful rights.
Justice Nagaresh observed that a refusal of police protection in such cases would violate the constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(g). The Court reiterated that disputes over the legality or merits of the quarry project must be resolved by competent authorities and not by private coercion or physical intervention.
The High Court of Kerala issued the following directions:
"The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and the scientific survey team of the 5th respondent in conducting inspection and study in the proposed quarrying land."
This direction was issued to the Station House Officer, Oonnukal Police Station, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha. The Court did not entertain any objection to the inspection, clarifying that lawful and necessary preliminary activities for obtaining statutory permissions must not be obstructed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Vijay Sankar V.H., Smt. Mintu Cheriyan
For the Respondents: Shri. P.M. Joshi, Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, Smt. Siji K. Paul, Shri. Bonny Baby, Smt. Sruthi Sunilkumar, Shri. C. Gokulkrishnan, Shri. V.V. Joshi, Sri. Dheeraj A.S., Government Pleader
Case Title: Sobin P K v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:52364
Case Number: WP(C) No. 24802 of 2024
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh
