IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
NOUSHAD – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF UPHILL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner operates quarry legally with necessary permits. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondents claim entitlement to work, which is disputed by petitioner. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court observes that machines do not necessitate headload workers' engagement. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is running a quarry within the limits of Pullipadam Village of Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, the quarry is functioning with all licenses and permissions. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P2 issued by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Ext.P3 issued by the State Pollution Control Board, Ext.P4 issued by the Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), and Ext.P5 license issued by the Mampad Grama Panchayat. It is submitted that the petitioner has also entered into a quarrying lease with the Government of Kerala for a period of ten years, i.e., till 13.03.2034. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that respondents 5 and 6, claiming to be headload workers in the area, are obstructing and causing nuisance to the petitioner while the petitioner is engaged in loading and unloading mined stone onto vehicles using
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.