Chodon Puthiyoth Narayanan vs. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioners seek for a direction to be given to the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective protection for engaging lorry operators of their choice to transport goods without being obstructed by the 4th respondent or anybody under them.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
The case of the petitioners is that they are doing trading in hill produces; such as tender arecanut, tender coconut, arecanut, coconut, pepper, cashew, dry arecanut, coffee, rubber and such other items. They collect materials from the farmers and transport the same to the markets at Kochi, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. For this purpose, they used to engage lorry operators of their choice so as to cater to the requirement. However, it was interdicted by the 4th respondent stating that the lorries would be deputed by them as and when the requirement is pointed out, which is not acceptable to the petitioner, as it does not have any legal backing, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that under exactly similar circumstances, aggrieved parties like the petitioners herein had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2011, wherein the right of the petitioners therein to engage lorry operators of their choice was declared in crystal-clear terms [in paragraph 7 of the said judgment dated 27.06.2011]; which reads as follows:
“7. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. There is no law or rule which obliges the petitioners to engage only transporters/lorry operators as decided/dictated by respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners are not in law obliged toengage any such particular transporter suggested by respondents 1 to 3. We are unable to locate on any piece of law, rules or binding agreements under which the petitioners can be compelled to engage lorry operators following the turn system introduced by the Association of lorry operators.”
After hearing, this Court finds that the petitioners have established a case to have the relief sought for. In the said circumstances, in terms of Ext. P3, we find it appropriate to declare that the petitioners are entitled to engage vehicles of their choice so as to transport the materials collected by them without being obstructed by the 4th respondent or anybody under them. If at all there is any threat to the law and order situation, the respondent Police shall intervene immediately to abate the same and afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioners to pursue their operation as aforesaid. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 17/7/2018 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 17/7/2018 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/6/20111 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 16019/2011(B) EXHIBIT P4OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 kmd
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.