The court asserts that parties with valid permits cannot be obstructed in carrying out their activities, pending legitimate legal challenges from opposing parties.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims title to 0.9995 hectares of land in Re-Survey No.388/2, Block No.27 of Njeezhoor Village, Vaikom Taluk. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) have issued a work order dated 15.11.2021 to M/s.KCC BuildCon Private Limited for the work ‘six laning of Thuravoor-Paravoor section of new NH-66’. The work order is not produced along with the writ petition. However, a copy of the same was handed over to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Based on the work order, the petitioner’s property was identified for extracting ordinary earth and the NHAI, as per Ext.P2 communication dated 21.08.2024, addressed the Geologist and recommended issuance of permit for removal of ordinary earth from the petitioner’s property specifically. Ext.P2 contains the name of the petitioner, the survey number of the property, the area and other details in a tabular statement. Ext.P3 is the quarrying permit issued to the petitioner by the District Geologist dated 14.11.2025, wherein the permit is stipulated to be in force from 14.11.2025 to 13.11.2026. In Ext.P3, the quantity of ordinary earth permitted to be excavated is specified. When the petitioner, on the strength of the above referred document, started excavation of ordinary earth from his property, he was obstructed by respondents 3 to 5. Accordingly, a complaint was preferred before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as also, the Station House Officer concerned, vide Ext.P4 dated 23.11.2025. Alleging that no effective police protection was afforded, the petitioner approached this Court seeking police protection by filing the instant writ petition.

2. Notice was served upon respondents 3 to 5 by special messenger, whereupon, they have entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. Refuting the allegations in the counter affidavit, a reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, as also, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and

2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is equipped with all necessary licences and permits for excavation of ordinary earth. As regards the requirement of an Environmental Clearance, it is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per a clarificatory order issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, pursuant to the judgment in Noble M.Paikada v. Union of India (Civil Appeal Nos.1628- 1629/2021), Environmental Clearance is not required in respect of work orders issued in favour of the NHAI, as on a particular cut-off date made mention of in the clarificatory order. The cut-off date mentioned therein is 21.03.2024. The petitioner claims that the work order in respect of the work-in-question was issued on 15.11.2021, which is within the period stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarificatory order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Intra Court Reference in W.P.(C) Nos.25 of 2025, 14775 of 2025 and 16710 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025, wherein it has been held that the benefit of the clarificatory order issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.05.2024 is available to the concessionaire also; and not merely to the NHAI. It is, therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that concessionaire, M/s.KCC Buildcon Private Limited, is entitled to extract soil from the petitioner’s property, as identified by Ext.P2, even in the absence of an Environmental Clearance issued by the competent authority. So long as the petitioner is equipped with Ext.P2 recommendation by the NHAI, ident