JUDGMENT : C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. A food processing unit engaged in the manufacture of pickles, jam, sauce, chatnipodi etc. is the petitioner herein, seeking police protection against the respondents 4 to 9 and their agents. According to the petitioner, the unit in question is being run after obtaining all requisite licences and permissions from various authorities concerned, especially from Respondents 1 to 3 and from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. According to the petitioner, the Respondents 4 to 9 are creating unnecessary obstructions raising some untrue and untenable allegations of pollution problems. It is also mentioned that a stop memo issued by the 2nd Respondent, the Secretary of Punnayur Grama Panchayath, was already stayed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, vide Ext.P14 order. Despite such situation, the Respondents 4 to 9 are taking law into their own hands and creating physical obstructions, is the complaint made. 2. It is submitted that despite the request made before Respondents 10 and 11 to afford adequate police protection, no effective action was taken. Hence the petitioner is approaching this court. 3. Respondents 4 to 9 have not chosen to contest the case by filing any counter affidavit. However, this court through order dated 29.03.2017 had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the Industrial Unit and to specifically report on the following aspects: (1) Whether there is any foul smell emanating from the manufacturing unit (2) whether any effluent is discharged to the adjacent places (3) whether the waste water generated in the manufacturing process is subjected to treatment in an effluent treatment plant, and (4) whether the petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions stipulated by the District Medical Officer/Kerala State Pollution Control Board in the consent to operate/permission granted by them. The Advocate Commissioner had filed a report in which all the above said queries were answered in favour of the petitioner. It is also reported by the Commissioner that despite service of notice, neither Respondents 4 to 9 or anybody else representing them were present at the time of the inspection. 4. From the factual matrix as enumerated above, we are of the opinion that Respondents 4 to 9 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions with respect to the conduct of the unit. 4. From the factual matrix as enumerated above, we are of the opinion that Respondents 4 to 9 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions with respect to the conduct of the unit. If the said Respondents have got any grievances, they have to work out their remedies before the appropriate authorities through any of the methods acceptable under law. Those Respondents cannot be permitted to create any physical obstruction, either directly or through their agents. If any such obstruction is caused, the Respondents 10 and 11 are duty bond to take adequate steps to remove such obstructions and to afford protection to the petitioner for the smooth functioning of the unit. Therefore, the above Writ Petition is allowed by directing the Respondents 10 & 11 to take effective steps to remove the obstruction, if any created against the functioning of the unit in any manner, at the instance of Respondents 4 to 9 or anybody else acting under them; and to afford necessary protection for the smooth functioning of the unit of the petitioner without being obstructed in any manner.