JUDGMENT : N.Nagaresh, J. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The company intends to manufacture Pride Chip Boards using agricultural waste and wood waste, in the property having an extent of around 7 Acres of land in Enanelloor Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk. 2. For starting the Company, the petitioner had obtained Acknowledgment Certificate under the Kerala Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019, Building Permit from the Panchayat, Consent to Establish from the Pollution Control Board and No Objection Certificate from the Fire and Rescue Department. The petitioner also obtained all statutory permits for the construction of the Company and building. 3. The petitioner had purchased the machinery for the Company and some of the machinery had come to the Company and the petitioner had installed the same. When the other machinery were on the way to the Company, respondents 4 to 10 obstructed the vehicle which carries the machinery stating that the same would destroy the road and the vehicles will not be permitted to ply through the Parambanchery-Vettithara road which is in Ward No.1. Due to the obstruction of the vehicle, the machineries worth huge amount is still lying on the road and the vehicles carrying the same is also lying on the road side. 4. Respondents 4 to 10 also trespassed to the petitioner-Company and threatened the workers from doing the construction work and installing works in the Company and they threatened that if the workers did the work, they would be physically manhandled. The petitioner had preferred a detailed complaint to the 2 nd respondent for police protection on 04.01.2025. Even though the complaint was submitted on the night itself, the receipt was issued on 05.01.2025. The 2 nd respondent is not taking any action for police protection, contends the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 3 rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2. Though notice was served on respondents 4 to 10, there is no appearance for respondents 4 to 10 when the case is called today. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is constructing the factory building after obtaining necessary Building Permit and other requisite statutory permissions. Though notice was served on respondents 4 to 10, there is no appearance for respondents 4 to 10 when the case is called today. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is constructing the factory building after obtaining necessary Building Permit and other requisite statutory permissions. Respondents 4 to 10 are objecting and obstructing the construction work alleging that the road leading to the petitioner's premise will be damaged, if the petitioner's activities are permitted. If that be the case, respondents 4 to 10 have to approach the competent statutory authority for redressal of their grievances. They cannot take law into their hands in order to obstruct a construction which is being carried after obtaining Building Permit. 7. Counsel for the 3 rd respondent submitted that the petitioner has undertaken that if the road is damaged, the road will be repaired and maintained at the expense of the petitioner. In the afore facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for construction of the building and transportation of machinery for such construction. If respondents 4 to 10 or any other persons have any further grievances relating to the activities of the petitioner, they will be at liberty to approach the competent statutory authorities.