Petitioner will be provided adequate police protection by Station officer to carry out the permitted activities and will have protection against any attack or obstructions by the respondent and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN in the case of P.B BOARDS v. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (WP(C) NO. 1975 OF 2022) on 7th April, 2022.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are seeking directions to extent police protection to them, their workers, vehicles etc for developing the property for construction of buildings as permitted by the Pollution Control Board and as covered by the Acknowledgment Certificates under the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (MSME Act).
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioners in the other writ petitions have obtained fraudulent Acknowledgment Certificates from the Department of Industries and Commerce for starting plywood manufacturing units in the Pothanicadu Grama Panchayat and that the emissions from the plywood units are likely to impact the immediate surroundings and adversely affect the health of the residents of the locality. He submitted that mass representations had been submitted by the petitioners before the various authorities and that respondents 9 to 13 have managed to secure fraudulent acknowledgment certificates and that the petitioner is therefore entitled to the reliefs as sought for. With regard to the writ petitions filed by the two partnership firms, it is contended that the partnership firms are not registered and that therefore they cannot maintain the writ petitions filed by them.
Court admitted the fact that that the petitioners have obtained acknowledgment certificates in terms of the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act and there are no materials placed on record by the respondent in the writ petition to state that the firm is not registered. The consent to establish as well as the acknowledgment certificates have been duly issued in the name of the firms and the petitioners have sued as the firms represented by its Managing Partners. The presumption is therefore, plainly that the firms are duly registered firms. In the absence of any material, it cannot be accepted that the firms are not registered and therefore cannot maintain the writ petitions.
Court held that that the 2nd respondent shall afford adequate protection to the petitioners in the said writ petitions to carry out the permitted activities under Exhibits P2 and P3 and shall afford adequate protection against any attack or obstruction from the party respondents or anybody claiming through them.
Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh