Sudheer vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 15 February 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 3741 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SUDHEER, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, KADAYIL VEEDU, PULIMOODU, THOLICODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 541. BY ADV. SMT.N.P.ASHA RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551. 4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551. 5 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, KAUSTHUBHAM COMPLEX, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 036. 6 ABDUL VAHEED, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. TAMBIKUNJU, CONVENOR, INTUC UNION OFFICE, PULIMOODU, VITHURA, THIRUVNAANTHAPURAM 695 551. W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 2 7 SHAHABUDEEN, AGED 52 YEARS CONVENOR, CITU, CITU UNION OFFICE, PULLIMOODU, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 551. BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, KHWWB OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 3 JUDGMENT P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents 2 to 4 to ensure law and order situation and to provide adequate police protection. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents 2 to 4 to restrain respondents 6 and 7 and their members from entering into petitioner's business place and cause any damages and to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his workers.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Aswin P. John, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel

W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 4 for the 5th respondent Board.

The petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment run under the name and style “Modern Enterprises”, as covered by Ext.P1 Registration Certificate. The business involves supply of building materials, roofing materials,plumbing materials, hardwares, tiles, etc. It is stated that the petitioner has engaged eight workers in his godown to do the loading and unloading activities as well. The grievance is with regard to the interference made by the respondents 6 and 7, causing forceful obstruction in connection with the loading and unloading activities in the estaglishment, which was brought to the notice of the police by filing a petition. It did not yield any positive result and hence the writ petition.

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 13.02.2019, we required the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent Board to ascertain whether the place in question is

W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 5 a scheme covered area or not. The learned Standing Counsel submits, on the basis of the instructions, that the place in question is not a scheme covered area.

The learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the allegation levelled against the said respondents is not correct. At no point of time had they taken the law into their hands, nor will they cause any forceful obstructions to the loading and unloading activities in the petitioner's establishment. It is stated that the workers and their Union were doing the loading and unloading operations in the petitioner's establishment as well, for quite long and that, but for the request to continue such arrangement, no action contrary to the provisions of law has been taken by them; submits the learned counsel.

We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as well.

W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 6

In so far as the merit of the case is involved, particularly with regard to the right of the petitioner, since the place in question is not a scheme covered area, it is open for the petitioner to engage workers of his choice. This is the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732] and Karunakara Kurup v. State of Kerala [2004 (1) KLT 215].

In the said circumstance, we find that the petitioner has succeeded in substantiating the case before this Court. The submission made by the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents, that no forceful obstruction is being caused by them, is recorded. If at all there is any threat to the law and order situation at the instance of the 6th and 7th respondents or anybody under them and once the same is brought to the notice of the police, it shall be for the respondents 2 to 4 to intervene and to take necessary remedial measures, abating

W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 7 the threat to the rule of law. The matter stands disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE okb //// P.A. to Judge

W.P(C) No.3741/19-P 8 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FORM GST REG-06 DATED 17-07-2018 EXHIBIT P2OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24-01-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24-1-2019.