Kakkeri Tiles Factory LLP vs. Sub Inspector Of Police - Kerala High Court, 26 July 2018

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 THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 22647 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) ------------- KAKKERI TILES FACTORY LLP, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ANEES BABU, 1ST FLOOR, 3/332J, PARAMBAN TOWER, NH BYPASS, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673633, BY ADVS.SRI.JIJO JOSEPH SRI.K.RAJESH (AROOR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENJIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. ANSAS K, CONVENOR, TUCI, KAKKANCHERY REGION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT S/O KOYA, VADAKEKANI HOUSE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO, PIN-673635. * ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED 4. THE KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, NEAR KACHERIPPADY, BUS STAND, MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676 121. * ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.7.2018 IN IA.NO.13558/2018. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.HAZAN SRI.V.J.JAMES SMT.M.M.FATHIMA JALEENA R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TS WP(C).No. 22647 of 2018 (E) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION DATED 07.02.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF D & O LICENSE PALLIKKAL PANCHAYATH DATED 01.04.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE FROM PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PALLIKKAL DATED 22.02.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT DATED 26.07.2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE HEAD LOAD WORKER REGISTRATION CARDS OF THREE EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.3.2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICES AND E-WAY BILLS DATED 25.06.2018 AND 29.06.2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED 29.06.2018 WITH RECEIPT NO.85501/2018. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------- EXHIBIT R3(A). TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF SRI.SULAIMAN BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM ON 07.03.2018. EXHIBIT R3(B). TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IR 281/18 DATED 19.03.2018 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. EXHIBIT R3(C). TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05.06.2018 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS - NIL ----------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE TS 02.08.2018 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ. ============================ W.P.(C) No.22647 of 2018 ============================ Dated this the 26th day of July, 2018

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner is stated to be a limited liability partnership and is represented by its Managing Partner. They have filed this writ petition praying that directions be issued to the 1st respondent, who is the concerned Police officer in charge of the area where they are running their business, to afford them effective and adequate protection from the obstructionist and disruptive activities of the third respondent, who is stated to be the convenor of the Trade Union operating in the area.

As per the petitioner, they were incorporated in the year 2015 under the name and style “Tiles Factory Retails LLP”, which was changed to the present name in the year 2016. They have produced the Certificate of Incorporation as Ext.P1 and they say that they have taken a 13,000 sq.ft. godown at Kakkanchery, Kozhikode, for the purpose of their business of trade in tiles, sanitary wares, CP fittings and adhesives. They say that even though they have all the concerned licences, they have been obstructed from carrying on with their business activities by the third respondent. The petitioner asserts that they have three permanent workers who have already obtained the necessary registration under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules and therefore, that the 3rd respondent cannot obtain any right to obstruct the petitioner from engaging them or to demand that the members of his Union be engaged. On such basis, they have sought for orders to be issued to the 1st respondent to afford them Police protection.

The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that there is no law and order situation at the moment in the area concerned but assures this Court that whenever there is an issue or problem, the Police will intervene as per law. According to him, if the petitioner does not violate any law and they operate their business strictly in accordance with the consents and permissions granted to them and as long as only the persons shown in Ext.P7 series registration cards are engaged by them for the loading and unloading work, the third respondent cannot cause disruption or obstruction to their business activities.

The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has approached this Court by making incorrect averments and he points out that even Ext.P7 series of documents are prima facie suspect. According to him, as has been stated by his client in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, the petitioner obtained the licence to conduct their business only after 01.06.2018 but that Ext.P7 has been issued much prior to that date. He alleges that it is therefore, certain that Ext.P7 series of registration cards have been managed to be obtained by the petitioner by adopting questionable methods.

On a consideration of the afore submissions, it becomes evident to us that as matters now stand, Ext.P7 series of registration cards are still in force with respect to three of the employees engaged by the petitioner. The question whether these cards are suspect or otherwise are not matters that this Court can consider while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it will certainly be up to the third respondent to initiate appropriate action impugning it before the competent Authorities, but as long as those cards continue to be in force, it would not be justified for the third respondent to obstruct the activities of the petitioner, more so when the petitioner only engages the services of the persons whose name are shown in Ext.P7 cards.

In the result, we allow this writ petition and direct the first respondent to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner's business as and when any complaint regarding infraction of law is made by them against the third respondent or any other person acting under him and in such event, the Police shall act in terms of law and take action commensurate to the threat meted out to the petitioner.

We clarify that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the third respondent in invoking and pursuing legitimate remedies against Ext.P7 cards, as he may be advised, before the competent Authorities but that he shall not in any event take law into his hands or cause any obstruction or disruption to the petitioner's business. This writ petition is thus ordered. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN stu JUDGE