Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Gas Authority of India Limited, represented by its Senior Manager (Law). In this writ petition, they have sought for a direction to the respondents to provide adequate police protection for the officials, labourers, machinery and the pipelines installed by the petitioner corporation in the lands which is the subject matter of the acquisition vide notification of the Central Government, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in notification Nos.S.O.No.865(E), dated 20.04.2012, S.O.No.1201(E), dated 25.5.2012, S.O.No.392(E), dated 07.03.2012, S.O.No.12(E), dated 04.01.2012, S.O.No.2865(E), dated 27.12.2011 and S.O.No.2832(E), dated 19.12.2011 issued under Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 for the purpose of locating Cochi-Koottanad-Mangalore-Bangaluru Pipeline Project through Districts of Salem, Coimbatore, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode and Tiruppur in the State of Tamil Nadu. 2. In this writ petition, the first respondent is the State of Tamil Nadu, respondents 2 to 8 are the Superintendents of Police of the respective Districts referred to above and 9th respondent is the Inspector of Police, Rayakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District. 3. The contention of the petitioner was that the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (for short GAIL) is one of the leading public sector undertaking established and wholly owned by the Government of India. The GAIL is one of the 'Navarathna' Enterprise and directly coming under the control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The Corporation was established with the object of providing adequate infrastructure for the production and easy transportation of the Natural Gas and Petroleum products throughout the Country by undertaking connectivity pipelines. The company had laid LPG pipelines across the country extending upto 1900 Kms. It plays a key role in providing natural gas and other fuels to various parts of the country. For the purpose of establishing transmission pipelines through the States were entrusted to the petitioner corporation. The Parliament had enacted the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50/1962), providing for acquisition of the rights of users in land for transportation of petroleum and other minerals. For the purpose of establishing transmission pipelines through the States were entrusted to the petitioner corporation. The Parliament had enacted the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50/1962), providing for acquisition of the rights of users in land for transportation of petroleum and other minerals. As per the scheme of the Act, whenever it appears to the Government of India that it was necessary in public interest that for the transport of natural gas from one locality to another pipelines may be laid by the Government and for that purpose, it is necessary to acquire the right of users in such land, it may by a notification in the official gazette declare its intention to acquire the right of the user therein. 4. The Act provides only for acquisition of right of users of land (ROU) and not the acquisition of land. For that purpose, the Act also empowers any person authorized by the Central Government or the Corporation which proposes to lay such pipelines to enter and survey such lands, to dig or bore into the subsoil, to set out the intended line of work and to survey such land. If any person has any objection for such acquisition, they are entitled to make objection to the competent authority notified under Section 3, who shall hold an enquiry and may by an order allow or disallow their objection. Thereafter, the competent authority should forward to the Government the order along with relevant records so as to make the Government to decide whether the right of the user of the land is to be acquired. The Central Government on the basis of such reference shall make a decision and also make a declaration under Section 6 and the right of user in the land shall from then onwards vest absolutely with the Central Government or on such corporation proposing to lay pipelines free from all encumbrances. 5. It is in this background, in order to meet the acute fuel crises in the Southern States of India, the "Kochi-Kuttandu-Mangalore-Bangaluru Pipeline Project" was conceived and it passes through the States of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The Government of India was planning to invest more than Rs.5000 crores in that project and it has been executed by the petitioner corporation. The Government of India was planning to invest more than Rs.5000 crores in that project and it has been executed by the petitioner corporation. If this project is completed, the natural gas will be supplied and distributed to the household sectors, commercial sectors and transport sector by laying pipeline in the underground. The said project is intended to be networked through the States of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu covering a total distance of more than 600 Kms., through which underground pipelines will be laid for transmission of natural gas. The respective States have also formed a high power monitoring committee for the expeditious execution of the project as it would help the States which are suffering from grave power crisis. The petitioner company was accorded sanction by the Government of India to execute the project. In order to facilitate the same in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Central Government by a notification dated 04.04.2011 had notified the lands in the Districts of Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Erode, Namakkal, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Salem to be intended to be covered by the said project. Objections were received from the land owners and from the other interested persons. Proceedings were conducted after due notice. 6. One farmer by name Mohana Balasubramanian filed W.P.No.14024 of 2012 challenging an order made by the competent authority rejecting their objections. It was admitted by this court and it is pending. The Government of India thereafter had issued notification in S.O.No.865(E), dated 20.04.2012, S.O.No.1201(E), dated 25.5.2012, S.O.No.392(E), dated 07.03.2012, S.O.No.12(E), dated 04.01.2012, S.O.No.2865(E), dated 27.12.2011 and S.O.No.2832(E), dated 19.12.2011 under Section 6 declaring the rights of users in the lands specified in the scheduled appended therein to have been acquired for laying of the pipeline. By the notifications, they had also vested the rights on the petitioner free from all encumbrances. When the petitioner company started preliminary works for execution of the project, the land owners and other farmer associations prevented them from performing their official duty and also attempted to damage the machineries and equipments used for that purpose. The machineries and equipments are very expensive and have to be laid with great care. Despite all attempts by the officials of the petitioner corporation and the State Government, the land owners and other persons have been preventing the peaceful execution of the project. The machineries and equipments are very expensive and have to be laid with great care. Despite all attempts by the officials of the petitioner corporation and the State Government, the land owners and other persons have been preventing the peaceful execution of the project. The local associations have also joined the land owners and stalled the progress of the project. The said project is a time bound project which will have to be executed expeditiously and any loss of time will have the effect on the cost of the project. The officials who tried to work on the site or those who instruct their workmen were also brutally attacked by such persons. Police complaints were preferred with the 9th respondent on 16.6.2012. The petitioner has also sent representations dated 17.6.2012 to the respondents requesting them to provide adequate protection for the successful execution of the project having regard to the public interest. 7. In the complaint sent by the petitioner company dated 16.6.2012 to the 9th respondent, it was stated that when they were working at Muthanahalli village, public of the village objected for laying the pipeline and prevented them from doing so. They removed the vehicles located therein. Since public were raising objections, the vehicles of the contractors and the Government are liable to be damaged. Further, some people from Tiruppur District were coming and instigating the public. Already, compensations for the land and loss of crops in the Jadaiyandahalli, Yechanahalli and Rayakottai village have been granted. Steps were also taken expeditiously to disburse the compensation. Since certain people from Tiruppur are instigating them, there is likelihood of law and order being affected. Hence they requested protection. 8. Based on the said complaint, a CSR acknowledgment, dated 16.6.2012 was given by the Inspector. But no FIR was registered. In identical requests sent to respondents 2 to 8, i.e., Superintendent of Police of different Districts, the petitioner had emphasized the same. In that letter, they had stated as follows : "....by and large there is no complaints whatsoever through out the land belonging to hundreds of farmers in this stretch have already been completed. As already stated above, the land will be given back to the farmers after laying the pipeline and they will be permitted to make use of it for normal cultivation which would not cause any damage to the pipeline..... As already stated above, the land will be given back to the farmers after laying the pipeline and they will be permitted to make use of it for normal cultivation which would not cause any damage to the pipeline..... .....We therefore pray your good offices to extend police protection for continuing the execution of the pipeline laying work in order to complete the project without any delay. GAIL undertake to pay the charges for providing police protection. As the pipeline laying in the above villages have come to complete halt due to protest by certain farmers, any obstruction for the public officials in discharging their functions is considered as a cognizable offence under the Act, your early intervention by providing police protection for laying the pipeline will be highly appreciated." Proof for sending those representations was also enclosed in the form of courier receipts. 9. It was contended that under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50/1962), Section 15 provides for penalty and the offences under Section 15(2) are cognizable offence. Therefore, it was urged the police authorities are bound to take action against the persons who are obstructing in laying pipelines. But the complaint made to the 9th respondent was the sole complaint that was enclosed in the typed set. It does not show that there is any offence made out against any one and it had vaguely referred to certain people. It had not even named as to who were the persons who were obstructing. Rightly, the police did not register any FIR and gave only a CSR receipt. The statements made to the respective Superintendents of Police also do not disclose any specific offence except by way of abundant caution they had made the request for police protection. 10. With these vague allegations as to how the petitioner can demand police protection as a matter of right, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Md.Shamin and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 539 . In that case, it was held that it was the duty of the police to give necessary protection to the property from being interfered by lawless elements and unauthorised persons. Ltd. and another Vs. Md.Shamin and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 539 . In that case, it was held that it was the duty of the police to give necessary protection to the property from being interfered by lawless elements and unauthorised persons. Therefore, a direction was given to protect the property of the company and also to enable them repair or renovate the boundary wall. But that case do not help the case of the petitioner in any manner. 11. He thereafter referred to a judgment of this court in K.C.P. Ltd. Vs. Inspector of Police, Tiruvottiyur and others reported in 1993 (I) LLJ 365 , wherein police protection was given for removal of certain articles out of the factory. This court held that public interest should be the criteria for directing the police to give protection. 12. The learned Senior Counsel further referred to a division bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Midland Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd., Cochin Vs. Superintendent of Police, Pathanamithitta and others reported in 1999 (I) LLJ 385 (Ker) and in paragraph 10, it was observed as follows : "10.) It is clear from the above pronouncement that a writ of mandamus should be issued to police authorities to enforce law. It is needless to say that duties imposed on the police authorities are to prevent the commission of crimes including the commission of cognizable offences. It is immaterial whether such crime is committed against an individual or public at large. In this view of ours it is necessary for us to grant the relief to the appellant because he is complaining of the inaction on the part of the police authorities to prevent the respondents from committing offences and also rescue the appellant from the clutches of the contesting respondents who have taken law in their own hands and are preventing the management from exercising their fundamental right to engage their own men and carry on a lawful trade or business as above. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition and the writ appeal are allowed. A mandamus is issued to respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the appellant, their employees and servants in the course of their lawful carrying on of business without any obstruction from the respondents-unions or members of the respondents-unions or any other persons claiming through or under them. A mandamus is issued to respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the appellant, their employees and servants in the course of their lawful carrying on of business without any obstruction from the respondents-unions or members of the respondents-unions or any other persons claiming through or under them. We make it clear that the direction given above is confined only to the rain-guarding work in the estate concerned and not with reference to any other work for which the casual labourers are engaged."(Emphasis added) 13. He also referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s.Raghavendra Ware Housing, H&T Contractor Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others in W.P.No.31277 of 2011, dated 21.12.2011, wherein the court gave a direction for carrying on handling and transportation operations by the A.P.Warehousing corporation. Further these decisions did not deal with a mega project like the petitioner spanning 8 districts, covering 600 miles and involving thousands of acres of agricultural lands. The issue is not a mere law and order problem, but the real apprehension raised by thousands of farmers who feel threatened about the future of their lands and the paltry compensation offered. The problem involved raises sociological problem which cannot be solved through police measures. 14. However, in this writ petition this court is not inclined to give any direction in the absence of the petitioner establishing any right to seek for such protection. Further necessary ingredients for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court has not been made out. The complaint made by them to the 9th respondent also does not disclose any name of the accused and also not giving any concrete example. It must be noted that by the project which is sought to be executed by the petitioner company, large tracts of agricultural lands were involved. Naturally when lands were sought to be interfered with, the land owners and occupants are apprehensive about the loss of the properties and are likely to ventilate their grievance in a democratic manner. When such democratic protests take place, the court cannot be a party to suppress such democratic protest in the name of issuing writ in the nature of mandamus. When such democratic protests take place, the court cannot be a party to suppress such democratic protest in the name of issuing writ in the nature of mandamus. On the other hand, the petitioner's remedy is to approach the State Government for appropriate relief rather than seeking for a direction to each of the Superintendent of Police to give protection as if they were to work under the orders of this court. The State Government has to make a decision based upon the objective situation prevailing in the Western parts of Tamil Nadu and also to assuage the feelings of discontent farmers before taking any drastic action. 15. It would not be out of place to refer to the minutes of meeting of the high power committee for Tamil Nadu as well as the instructions given by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, dated 3.7.2012. In that meeting, the General Manager of the petitioner company had participated. The meeting was held in the presence of the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Agriculture Department and Environment & Forest Department as well as the District Collectors of seven Districts in which pipelines are sought to be laid. In the meeting held on 20.6.2012, the subject was to expedite the land acquisition process in respect of implementation of the project. The meeting was attended to by the respective District Collectors, who had informed that adequate compensation is to be given to the land owners / farmers, which will enable them to talk to the farmers for providing interruption free Right of Use (ROU) which will in turn enable faster execution of the project. It was also decided to have revised guideline values as reference for market rate for calculation of the land compensation. As Solatium was given in cases of permanent land acquisition, it was also decided to grant solatium even in cases of ROU compensation. It was also decided that ROU compensation formula would be taken up in the high level committee by circulation. In the end of the meeting, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department had instructed the District Collectors to take an action as per the existing G.O.No.103, Revenue Department, dated 28.02.2011 for land acquisition through private negotiation by forming District level committee. In case the land owner does not agree, the acquisition should be done by invoking emergency clause. In the end of the meeting, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department had instructed the District Collectors to take an action as per the existing G.O.No.103, Revenue Department, dated 28.02.2011 for land acquisition through private negotiation by forming District level committee. In case the land owner does not agree, the acquisition should be done by invoking emergency clause. In such cases, it was also decided to acquire the land by land acquisition for Tamil Nadu Acquisition for Industrial purposes Act. Thereafter, the committee in respect of the compensation for standing crops and trees enroute had decided to depute two horticulturists to the project for valuation of crops and trees. The representative of the petitioner company had informed that the two horticulturists should be deputed as discussed in the second high power committee meeting as expeditious evaluation of fruit bearing tree and forest tree is very critical for calculation of crop and tree corporation, which will enable speedy distribution of compensation to the farmers. It was also stated that the district level horticulture and forest officers should verify the Panchanama list submitted by the competent authority and for timely evaluation of trees and submission of details of trees to the respective department. 16. with reference to the administrative support discussed in the meeting, it was recorded as follows : "All the District Collectors, were instructed to talk to the affected parties and advise above the benefits of the project to the State. They were also advised to take appropriate action for ensuring Law & Order in the Districts and facilitate laying of Kochi-Kootanad - Bangalore/Mangalore-Gas pipeline, so as to ensure completion of the project in the Scheduled time." (Emphasis added) 17. Therefore, it was not as if the State Government is not alive to the situation on the field. On the other hand, there are competing interests between the petitioner company as well as persons whose lands were likely to be affected by the laying down of pipelines. Therefore, the issue cannot be resolved as a mere law and order problem. The State being responsible for the welfare of the people has to take into account the apprehensions raised by the farmers and must make them to agree for a reasonable solution. Therefore, the issue cannot be resolved as a mere law and order problem. The State being responsible for the welfare of the people has to take into account the apprehensions raised by the farmers and must make them to agree for a reasonable solution. When the first respondent having constituted high power committee and they are in touch with the District Collectors who are the field officers, this court cannot give any parallel direction to the Superintendents of Police to do certain things which will throw spanner in the works undertaken by the State Government. 18. It must also be noted that losing of lands or rights over the land is an emotive issue. After experience gained from Nandigram and Singur villages at West Bengal, no State action should give rise to unpleasant situation. Any industrial operation or industrial projects can come up only with the consent of the local population. No project can ever be executed by any person including the State Government through police operations thereby alienating the entire local population. 19. The writ in the nature of mandamus can only be issued when the petitioner is able to cite any cognizable offence is being committed by identified persons. If inspite of making such complaints, the local police are not willing to take an appropriate action in terms of the Cr.P.C. or any relevant laws, thereafter, the State Government will have to be approached for granting necessary directions. But, in the present case, the petitioner immediately after the high power committee meeting, for which the minutes was circulated on 03.07.2012 and even before the minutes could be circulated, had rushed to this court for an omnibus relief without providing necessary ingredients for the exercise of power by this court. This court do not think that the State Government had been a mute spectator or the State Government is an unwilling party for the petitioner laying down their pipelines. On the other hand, the State Government is seized of the ground realities and are in complete touch with the District Collectors. They have also given them advice as to how the farmers can be satisfied in implementing the mega project like the petitioner's project. 20. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to issue any order which can obstruct the decision taken by the State Government in this regard. They have also given them advice as to how the farmers can be satisfied in implementing the mega project like the petitioner's project. 20. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to issue any order which can obstruct the decision taken by the State Government in this regard. It is well open to the petitioner to complain to the State Government about any specific instance of obstruction in any village. There is time enough for the first respondent to consider the nature of action to be initiated in such matters. Under these circumstances, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.