Vipinanadh vs. The District Police Chief

Original PDF →
WP(C)/18099/2021HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01047718202105 October 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUE AY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18099 OF 2021 PETITIONER: VIPINANADH AGED 55 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'VAISAKHAM', UMMANADU, CHADAYAMANGALAM, PROPRIETOR, VIVA AGENCY,KALAYAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 534. BY ADVS. K.B.ARUNKUMAR POOJA K.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA P. O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 506. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHADAYAMANGALAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 534. 3 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4 BIJU S/O. DAMODHARAN, 'MIZHI', THANNIPURAM, EDAKKODU, CHADAYAMANGALAM P. O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 534. 5 RATHEESH S/O. SREEKUMAR, CHEENIVILA VEEDU, KALAYAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM P. O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 534. WP(C) NO. 18099 OF 2021 2 6 SUNILKUMAR S/O.THANKAPPAN, PULIPPARAVILA VEEDU, EDAKKODU, CHADAYAMANGALAM P. O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 534. BY SRI. K.SIJU SC OTHER PRESENT: SRI E C BINEESH - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 18099 OF 2021 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that he is running a business at Chadayamangalam, Kollam, which is not covered by a Scheme under the Headload Workers Act. He says that his business is a shop under the name of 'Agency Dealings' engaged in supply of building materials and also hardware products. He says that he has his own workers who are capable of handling the loading and unloading work in his premises; but that they are being obstructed by respondents 4 to 6, claiming exclusive rights to do such work. He contends that since the area in question is not covered by any Scheme under the Headload Workers Act, the said respondents, cannot make any such claim.

2.

The petitioner says that he, therefore, preferred Ext. P5 complaint before the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer, seeking protection; but that no action has been taken thereon, thus constraining him to approach this Court through this writ petition.

3.

I have heard Sri. K. B. Arunkumar, learned counsel for

WP(C) NO. 18099 OF 2021 4 the petitioner; Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned Government Pleader, Sri. E. C. Bineesh, for respondents 1 and 2. 4. Even though, notice has been validly served on respondents 4 to 6, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations in this writ petition.

5.

Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent – Board, affirmed that the area, where the petitioner is running his business, is not covered by a Scheme under Headload Workers Act.

6.

The learned Government Pleader Sri. E.C. Bineesh, submitted that, pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 07/09/2021, the police have ensured that law and order is maintained in the area of in question and that no breach has been allowed to be committed by any person.

WP(C) NO. 18099 OF 2021 5 Taking note of the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, confirming the interim order, dated 7th September, 2021; consequently, directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that the lives of the petitioner and of his employees are adequately and effectively protected from every threat and intimidation from any person, including respondents 4 to 6 and their men or associates. Needless to say, the 2nd respondent will ensure that law and order in the area, where the petitioner's business is situated, is maintained without any breach in future. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB

WP(C) NO. 18099 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18099/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE SHOP OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.04.2021. Exhibit P2OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER GST ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S FIRM. Exhibit P3OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 10.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHADAYAMANGALAM UNDER THE KERALA SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT. Exhibit P4OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY VISAKH FOR REGISTRATION UNDER RULE 26A OF KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES. Exhibit P4(a)OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PRAVEESHKUMAR V. FOR REGISTRATION UNDER RULE 26A OF KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES. Exhibit P4(b)OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SREEJITH P. S. FOR REGISTRATION UNDER RULE 26A OF KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS RULES. Exhibit P5OF COMPLAINT DATED 27.07.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE ETHE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT. Exhibit P6OF COMMUNICATION DATED 10.06.2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHADAYAMANGALAM.

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.