Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, as also, the learned counsel for the first respondent, who was the writ petitioner.
2. Notice was served through special messenger on private respondents in the writ petition before 28.03.2014. The matter was decided by this Court on 01.04.2014.
3. The direction issued through judgment sought to be reviewed is to the following effect:
“In the result, this writ petition is allowed, directing that the jurisdictional Police will interfere in case of real apprehension of commission or in the event of attempt to commit or in the commission of any cognizable offence by any person and provide adequate protection to the petitioner and his workers for the purpose of establishing and carrying out the functioning of the unit, 'Mehraj Timber Industries' in Vengola Village and for which permission has been granted by the 3rd respondent, Grama Panchayat and the jurisdictional Officer of the 4th respondent, Pollution Control Board.”
4. It cannot be disputed that it is within the jurisdiction of the Police and their duties and responsibilities to ensure that cognizable offences are prevented, and if committed, are appropriately recorded, investigated and further proceeded with.
5. Notwithstanding the plea that the private respondents in the writ petition could not place their pleadings before this Court, the only ground raised in this application, otherwise, is that the writ petitioner does not have a valid licence to carry out his activity. It is not disputed that the Pollution Control Board (PCB) had granted clearance and that the Grama Panchayat had withdrawn the stop memo issued by it. While the review petitioners now hold out Annexure-A3 interlocutory order of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, by which, among other things, Vengola Grama Panchayat is directed not to issue any further licence for starting plywood manufacturing units or expanding the existing units, until further orders, we cannot but take note of the fact that the protection granted through the judgment sought to be reviewed is only for carrying out the functioning of the unit for which permission was already granted by the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat and the jurisdictional officer of the PCB. The admitted situation is that all those events as to permission were much before the interlocutory order of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, noted above. This position is not disputed.
6. The writ petitioner was in the process of carrying out the activities in relation to a saw mill and a veneer manufacturing unit, which his father had commenced during his life time. We had recorded the submission on behalf of the Police that the private respondents in the writ petition had attempted to encroach upon the land of the writ petitioner, and criminal cases have been registered.
7. Under the aforenoted circumstances, as also because there is no error apparent on the face of the records, and noticing that the review petitioners have no grievance on the scales of justice, we do not see that there is any ground to review the judgment. However, it needs to be mentioned that any decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India binding on existing units ought to be looked into by the appropriate statutory authorities, even in the case of the writ petitioner, if it applies to that unit as well. We also clarify that the petitioners in the review petition will be at liberty to seek remedies as against any of the permits which the writ petitioner has, and this order or the judgment in the writ petition will not stand in the way of them doing that.
In the result, subject to the aforesaid clarification, this review petition is dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (A.MUHA MED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE) jg