Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. A person gets the permissions from the civic authorities to establish an industry. While he is proceeding with his work, the public protest. The civil body turns hostile, and litigation ensues. Despite the pending judicial proceedings, the permits and licences still survive. Yet the public protests seem to continue unabated. Should the pending litigation and the public protests act as an automatic deterrent, preventing the permit holder from proceeding further?

The Controversy:

2. The petitioners, the two Someni brothers, obtained a building permit and a development permit to establish an industrial unit--Moonlight Premium Sands (M-Sand manufacturing)--at Navayikulam village. They obtained all the statutory permits and licences: Ext. 2 building permit; Ext. P3 development permit to construct internal roads; Ext. P4 no objection certificate (NOC) from the Fire and Rescue Services; Ext. P5 NOC from the District Medical Officer (Health); Ext. P6 permit from the Factories and Boilers Dept., Kollam; and Ext. P7 'consent to establish' issued by the State Pollution Control Board.

3. While the Somenis, as the Directors of Moonlight Premium Sands Pvt., Ltd., were building their unit, the respondents 3 to 9 with their men trespassed upon the construction site, disrupted the construction, and declared that they would not allow the Somenis to establish any industry there. On the site, they also erected various flags showing affiliation to different political parties. The respondents also said to have threatened the Somenis with violence even at the slightest resistance from them. In this process, the respondents have said to have destroyed the temporary office built on site by the Somenis.

4. Alarmed at the turn of events, the Somenis approached the 2nd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police but received no protection. This is despite the brothers' submitting the Ext. P11 complaint to the police. So the Somenis have approached this Court seeking a mandamus to the SI of Police to take effective steps to restore law and order and to provide "adequate police protection" to them from the respondents 3 to 9 and their men.

Submissions:

The Petitioners':

5. In the above factual background, Sri T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the Somenis have all the requisite permissions from the statutory authorities, including the 10th respondent-Grama Panchayat. Illustratively, he stresses on the Ext. P16--the Grama Panchayat Resolution that permits the Somenis to establish their M Sand unit. After taking us through all the permits and licences available on file, the learned Senior Counsel has strenuously contended that the respondents 3 to 9 have no manner of right to take the law into their hands and resort to violent, destructive, and disruptive criminal activities. He has also drawn our attention to Section 4 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, to stress that the police are duty bound to protect the life, liberty, and property of all persons.

6. As to the further developments after the Somenis obtained the building permission from the Grama Panchayat, the learned Senior Counsel submits that even Ext. R10(s) stop-memo issued by the Grama Panchayat has already been stayed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions ("The Tribunal"). According to him, absent any statutory interdiction, the Somenis are free to proceed with their establishing the industrial unit, and the police are bound to protect their legitimate activities in the face of criminal acts--vandalism-- committed by the respondents 3 to 9. The Grama Panchayat's:

7. Sri Biju Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the Grama Panchayat, has submitted, first, that the Somenis have not obtained a licence under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Second, there have been mass complaints--Ext. R10(k) and Ext. R10(1)--from the public and the representatives of different political parties against the S