Dhanesh Kumar A.V vs. The Superintendent Of Police - Kerala High Court, 06 July 2018

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) NO.19811 OF 2018

W.P.(C) No.21708 of 2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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 FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 21708 of 2018 (K) PETITIONER(S) 1 DHANESH KUMAR A.V AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, AVENVEETTIL HOUSE, PONANI P.O., THEYYANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 FIROZ A.V. AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SALAM, MUSALIARAKATH ARAKKAL, PUZHAMBRAM, BIYYAM P.O., PONANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM - 679 577. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONANI, MALAPPURAM-679 577. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONANI POLICE STATION, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-679 577. 4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER PONANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU) K.K.JUNCTION, PONANI, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 to R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.O.THAJUDEEN R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.PRASAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21708 of 2018 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION OF THE FIRM. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ABOOBAKCKER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/06/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.19811 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.260/2018 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27/06/2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE ACCEPTANCE OF EXT.P7. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL OKB TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,JJ --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21708 of 2018 --------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2018

JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioners for carrying out loading and unloading in their business premises namely 'New Ponnani Traders', Ponnani. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners and its employees for carrying out business in the shop namely 'New Ponnani Traders', Ponnani from the threat of the 5th respondent and its members. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and to grant adequate police protection as requested for.

The grievance projected in this writ petition is with regard to the callous inaction on the part of the police, in affording adequate protection to the loading and unloading activities being pursued by the petitioners themselves and also W.P(C).21708/18 :2: in respect of the threat to the life of the petitioners caused from the part of the 5th respondent herein.

Heard Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri.V.P.Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent and also Sri. P.P.Thajudeen, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners, who are the partners of the establishment runs under the name and style “New Ponnani Traders”, are running a hardware shop, mainly dealing with cement and steel. Earlier, they used to engage workers from the 5th respondent and all of a sudden, the amounts payable as wages were enhanced beyond any logical limits, under which circumstance, the petitioners in view of the limited quantum of business taking place in the establishment, decided to do the loading and unloading activities by themselves, that is, by the partners. The learned counsel points out that the second petitioner, who is a partner of the establishment, has sought for registration of his name in terms of Rule 26A of the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers

W.P(C).21708/18 :3: Rules, as evidenced from Ext.P3, apart from seeking for similar registration in respect of one worker, by name Aboobacker, as borne by Ext.P4. Since there was delay in considering the said application by the competent Authority, the first petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.19811/2018, which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.6.2018, directing the 1st respondent therein, who is the 4th respondent herein, to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders in terms of law, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment (which time is still to be over). The learned counsel points out that in respect of the various offences committed by the persons under the 5th respondent, the matter has been reported to the police and they have registered a crime as borne by Ext.P6 F.I.R. Still the position has not improved; the threat continues and the petitioners are not in a position to carry out the business and hence this writ petition.

The learned Government Pleader submits that, the time stipulated by this Court as per Ext.P5 is not over and that the direction will be complied with by the competent Authority

W.P(C).21708/18 :4: by finalising the application for registration under Section 26A of the said Rules. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, till the proceedings are finalised by the competent Authority (the 4th respondent) based on the direction in Ext.P5, the loading and unloading activities in the establishment shall be conducted and confined only by/to the petitioners themselves, who are the partners of the establishment.

In the above circumstances, we find it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by making it clear that, in so far as the loading and unloading activities in the establishment are conducted by the petitioners/partners themselves and, if there is any threat to the law and order situation at the instance of the 5th respondent or anybody under them, the police shall intervene and take necessary remedial measures, extending adequate and effective protection to conduct the business, including loading and unloading operations by the partners themselves. It is made clear that the petitioners will not be permitted to engage the service of anybody else. The engagement of Aboobacker or such other employee, if at all any, sought to be registered under Rule

W.P(C).21708/18 :5: 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, will be subject to the orders to be passed by the the 4th respondent, in the application stated as pending consideration before the said respondent, which was directed to be disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Judge DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN Judge

okb. //// P.A. to Judge