Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and his staff from respondents 4, 5 and their men for quarrying operations in properties comprised Sy No.776/1-29 and 776/3-8 of Chethackal Village of Ranni Taluk in Pathanamthitta District and covered by Ext.P1;
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and his staff from respondents 4, 5 and their men for doing the loading and other operations in the quarry covered by Ext.P1 using machineries;
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and his staff from respondents 4, 5 and their men for the vehicles coming to and going from the granite quarry conducted by the petitioner as per Ext.P1;
iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to WP(C) No. 12246 of 2014 -:2:-
provide adequate and effective protection to the life and properties of the petitioner and his staff from respondents 4, 5 and their men and from the illegal demand made by them for nooku coolie.”
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.
4. Despite completion of service of notice, there is no appearance for the party respondents. Learned Government WP(C) No. 12246 of 2014 -:3:-
Pleader on instructions submits that, there is no threat to the law and order situation as on today, and that the Unit is functioning without any obstruction.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear that if at all there is any threat to the law and order situation or if there is any obstruction by respondents 4 and 5 or anybody under them, proper and effective steps shall be taken by Police to see that there is no law and order situation. This is without prejudice to the right of the workers/parties to approach the competent authorities of the Labour Department, if there is any labour dispute.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/05/06