BharatTaxGST

V.S Jagadeesh Prasad vs. The State Police Chief

Original PDF →
WP(C)/29356/2018HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01066156201811 September 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN6 pages
For Respondent: R1 – R5 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 29356 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: V.S JAGADEESH PRASAD, AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE K.K DAMODARA PANICKER PROPRIETOR, AMAR JYOTHI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 008, RESIDING AT AMAR JYOTHI RESIDENCE, N.T.V.NAGAR -32, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM-691 008. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEADQUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 014. 2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM-691 001. 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM-691001. 4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 013. 5 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM 691013. 6 THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD KOLLAM, DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM-691001. WP(C).No. 29356 of 2018 2 7 SRI.ANTONY BABU, CONVENER, LOADING, UNLOADING AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), KADAPAKKADA P.O. KOLLAM 691008. 8 SRI.YOHANAN CONVENER, HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (AITUC), KADAPAKKADA UNIT, KADAPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM-691008. OTHER PRESENT: R1 – R5 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY SRI.K.SIJU R7 & R8 BY S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J The petitioner, who is the proprietor of a commercial business by name M/s.Amar Jyothi Distributing Company, Kadpakkada, Kollam, has filed this writ petition praying that the concerned police officers, namely respondents 3 and 4, be directed to afford his business and his employees sufficient protection from respondents 7 and 8, who are stated to be the conveners of the Unions of Head Load Workers.

2.

As per Sir.Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the entire loading and unloading work in his clients business is being done with the help of three workmen by names, Sri.Maheshmon, Sri.Prakash and Sri.Shyamkumar, who he says have already been registered under the provisions of Section 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. He then alleges that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has been engaging only the aforesaid registered workers, respondents 7 and 8 are now obstructing his business activities claiming that they have the exclusive rights to be engaged for such works. He, therefore, prays that orders be issued to the police authorities to ensure that the obstruction caused by respondents 7 and 8 are immediately removed.

3.

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submits that the area in question where the petitioner's business is situated is not scheme covered. According to him, since the area is still not a scheme covered one, the petitioner may be entitled to use his own workers, but submits that in case he requires any additional personnel, he would also be at liberty to seek workers to be deployed from the Unions operating in the said area.

4.

The learned

counsel,

Sri.S.Sreekumar, appearing for respondents 7 and 8 initially sought for time to file a counter affidavit, but on being confronted with the fact that the area is not a scheme covered one, submits that they were not causing any obstruction physically to the business of the petitioner but that they were only agitating for their legitimate rights. He says that respondents 7 and 8 represents the Union of the headload workers of the area in question and that since the petitioner is undertaking loading and unloading works in his business, such works should legitimately be granted to them and not to persons of his choice.

5.

When we hear the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8 as afore, it becomes obvious that those submissions are based on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act and Rules. The right of respondents 7 and 8 or their members would arise for our consideration only if the area is a notified one. In the admitted scenario that the area is not so, it becomes obvious that the petitioner would be entitled to engage persons of his choice and not merely registered workers. However, since the petitioner says that he has three registered workers, we deem it appropriate to limit our directions to such workers and no more.

6.

Under such circumstances, we order this writ petition and direct the 4th respondent, Station House Officer, Kollam East Police Station, to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner, as and when such a request is made by him, against respondents 7 and 8 or men acting under them, if any obstruction is caused to the business activities, including moving of vehicles to and from his Unit, as long as he engages the aforementioned three persons, who are covered by Ext.P3 identity cards issued under the provisions of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules. This writ petition is thus ordered. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE AMV/11/09/2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND V-GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD., KOCHI DATED 17.1.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY

OF THE GST

REGISTRATION NO.32AECPS2393QIZZ ISSUED BY THE STATE TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED UNDER RULE 26 A (3) OF THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS RULES,1981 TO THE WORKERS OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR LEAVE & LICENSE DATED 20.7.2018 ENTERED INTO WITH THE PETITIONER AND THE LICENSEE. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THE 6TH RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT

NO.673/PTPN/18-B1

DATED 30/08/2018 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 30/08/2018 ISSUED BY M/S.V GUARD INDUSTRIES TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1.9.2018 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT REQUESTING TO GRANT POLICE PROTECTION. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30/08/2018 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT NO.113373/2018 DATED 03/09/2018. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NILP.A.TO JUDGE

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.