A.M.Shaffique, J The petitioner has approached this court seeking adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to carry on his business of quarrying and stone crusher unit. He complains that obstruction being created by respondents 5 to 9. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner is running a stone crusher unit and Hollow Bricks manufacturing unit. According to him he has all valid permit and licences. The business is carried on in strict compliance of law. Certain persons in the locality sought injunction from operating the business activity. By order dated 5.10.2013, in I.A. No.1903 of 2013 in O.P No.2 of 2013 the Subordinate Judge's Court refused to grant injunction but observed that the claimants will have to approach the civil court seeking damage for loss of any sustained on account of any activity being carried on by the petitioner. On this basis, it is WP(C) No. 27622/14 2 contended that the party respondents are unnecessarily obstructing the business activity carried on by the petitioner. Petitioner had approached the police to provide adequate police protection. But no action has been taken in the matter and accordingly the writ petition is filed. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 5 to 9. It is inter alia contended that large scale explosive substances were used in quarrying operation and there is damage to buildings of the Tribals in the locality. According to them, the quarry is situated in an ecologically fragile area. If further quarrying is carried on, it will cause further damages. Reference is made to Ext. R5( A) report dated 19.6.2013 of the Circle Inspector of Police, in which it is stated that damage to the buildings might have been caused due to quarrying operations.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.R5 (A) was produced before the civil court but despite that the civil court has not granted any relief in I.A. No.1903 of 2013 in O.P No.2 of 2013.
4. Having regard to the nature of pleadings of learned counsel appearing on both sides, we are of the view that if the WP(C) No. 27622/14 3 party respondents have a case that the petitioner is not carrying on quarrying operation in accordance with the licence or permit granted to the petitioner, it is for them to approach the competent authority and submit their complaint. They cannot take law into their hands and obstruct the activities of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9 submits that they are not creating any obstruction. We record the statement of the learned counsel.
In the above circumstances, if there is any obstruction in the functioning of the petitioner's business as narrated above, by the party respondents or their men, Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that no law and order situation is created and no hindrance is caused to the business activity of the petitioner.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
Sou.