Police Inaction Against Obstruction Of Lawful Business Violates Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(g): Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently ordered police protection in a plea preferred by a quarry entrepreneur, who was prevented from conducting scientific study in order to start quarry operations.The petitioner had taken on lease certain land for conducting quarrying activities. After many legal impediments, the petitioner wanted to conduct a scientific study in the proposed quarry area and had...
The Kerala High Court recently ordered police protection in a plea preferred by a quarry entrepreneur, who was prevented from conducting scientific study in order to start quarry operations.
The petitioner had taken on lease certain land for conducting quarrying activities. After many legal impediments, the petitioner wanted to conduct a scientific study in the proposed quarry area and had paid the requisite fee to the technical team.
However, it is alleged that the 4th respondent and his henchmen attacked the petitioner. Further, they prevented the team from conducting any inspection in an attempt to start quarrying operations themselves.
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred petition before the police for protection. Due to the inaction of the police officials, the present writ petition was filed.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed,
“In our country governed by Rule of Law, every citizen has a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law, following the provisions of law. Whether such an avocation/business is to be permitted or not, is for the competent authorities under the State to decide.”
Noting that no one can take law into their own hands and obstruct the study proposed to be conducted by the petitioner, the Single judge further observed,
“If the 4th respondent uses physical force, the police authorities are bound to protect the petitioner as long as the activity is not prohibited by law, the failure of which will offend the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.”
Thus, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Station House Officer (SHO), Oonnukal Police Station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Respondents 2 and 3) to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and the technical team for conducting the scientific study.
Case No: WP(C) No. 24802 of 2024
Case Title: Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
Counsel for the petitioner: Vijay Sankar V.H., Mintu Cheriyan
Counsel for the respondents: P.M. Joshi, Peeyus A. Kottam, Siji K. Paul, Bonny Baby, Sruthi Sunilkumar, C. Gokulkrishnan, V.V. Joshi; Dheeraj A.S. – Government Pleader