Pius C. Kuriakose, J.@mdashThe Chairman of M/s Peekay Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. said to be one of the leading manufacturers of steel products in the state has approached this Court seeking police protection in the matter of carrying out the construction of compound wall for the company''s premises on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit without any hindrance or interference from Respondents 4 to 8 or their men. Respondents 4 to 8 who claimed to be the activists of an unregistered organization called "Eco friends Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithy" have filed a counter affidavit raising the following prominent contentions:
The contents of paragraph 2 of the Writ Memorandum are utterly false. The residents of the alleged property described in the petition have never behaved so or indulged ever in such acts or offences. What we were all these time doing was opposing the pollutant activities of this steel industry and its adjuncts run illegally and unlawfully injuring the safety and sanity of the ecology of the area and polluting air, earth and environment. The neighbouring residents including other Respondents have been for the last over six years raising their legitimate protests against this steel factory and its pollutant activities. They did it quite lawfully by forming a movement/organization called "Eco friends Paristhithi Samrakshna Samithy". The Petitioner''s attempt is to put down this public resentment against his pollutant activities by falsely describing the persons including Respondents 4 to 8 as "anti social", Bootleggers, thieves etc. The Petitioner deserves severe admonition by this Hon''ble Court against his such and other expressions awarding costs and compensatory costs to the Respondents 4 to 8 and their organization, to be paid by/received from the Petitioner for having dragged them to this Hon''ble Court with this sort of frivolous and vexatious legal action worthy and nothing. Similarly scathing, scandalous and defamatory false imputations are made against respectable residents of the locality which he is polluting with impunity.
2. The learned Government Pleader Smt. C.M. Charisma on the basis of instructions from the concerned Police Officers submitted that the party Respondents are opposed to the construction of compound wall by the Petitioner/company as they are apprehensive of pollution which will be generated by the company. Sri.C.P. Mohammed Nias, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the company has been functioning since 1993 and during the last two years they are certified by the Pollution Control Board for the effective pollution control arrangements made by them in their factory. Sri. Nias submitted that the above claim which is made in the Writ Petition is not specifically disputed by the contesting Respondents.
3. According to Smt. Charisma, it is to be verified whether the claim of the writ Petitioner that Ext.P1 permit is now in currency is correct.
4. Having considered the averments in the Writ Petition, affidavit and materials placed on record, we feel that the Petitioner has made out a case for issuance of the directions sought for. The factory of the Petitioner has been functioning for two decades and what the Petitioners want to do now is to construct a compound wall. The local authority has obviously after making due enquiries issued them with a permit. We do not find any reason as to why the Petitioner/company should not be permitted to construct the compound wall on the strength of Ext.P1. Under the above circumstances, we allow this Writ Petition to a certain extent and direct Respondents 1 to 3 to ascertain whether Ext.P1 permit is even now in currency and if on verification it is revealed that Ext.P1 is now in currency those Respondents shall afford adequate and effective protection to the Petitioner/Company, its contractors and workers for the purpose of construction of the compound wall for the Petitioner''s property on the strength of Ext.P1 permit without any hindrance or interference from Respondents 4 to 8 or anybody acting under them or for them.
