IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24653 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.J.ALEX, S/O.N.C.JOSEPH, NEERACKAL HOUSE, PADAMUKAL RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION- 54, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. LEON ALEXANDER, S/O.JOSEPH CHANDY, NEERACKAL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM-686613. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR-670 001. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THALASSERY-670 101. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLAVALLOOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR- 670693. 6. SRI.MANOJ, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KUNDUPARAMBATH HOUSE, CHERUPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR-670693. 7. SRI.A.ASHOKAN @ AZHIKODAN ASHOKAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHERUVANCHARY P.O., THALASSERY- 670650. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R6-7 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R6-7 SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR FOR R6-7 R1 to R5 BY GP SMT. C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 24653 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J. This writ petition is filed seeking directions to respondents 1 to 5 to remove illegal obstruction alleged to have been caused by respondents 6 and 7 and men under them, and to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners and their own workers for enabling them to do all agricultural operations in their property. Allegations in the writ petition is that respondents 6 and 7 are causing physical obstructions to the petitioners and their workers in entering into the plantation (estate owned by them) and in continuing with the works required. According to the petitioners, the respondents 6 and 7 are creating such obstructions and hindrance on the premise that, they are claiming appointment as labourers in the estate of the petitioners. The 6th respondent is seeking employment in the petitioners' estate on compassionate basis since his predecessor in interest was an employee of the said estate. WP(C).No.24653/2011 2 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 6 and 7 it is stated that, the 6th respondent is the elder son of one Sri. Krishnan, who was an employee of the 1st petitioner, who died on 21.1.2011. Krishnan's family was depending on the sole income derived out of the labour, and his family consisted of wife, two daughters and two sons. After death of Sri.Krishnan the first petitioner was approached for getting benefits due to the deceased employee and also demanding to provide employment to the 6th respondent. As the 1st petitioner was not willing, mediations were attempted and requests were made to show benevolence. However, it is conceded that, neither the 6th respondent nor the workers of the political party viz. BJP, who is alleged to have been supporting the 6th respondent, have trespassed into the properties or created any obstructions to the labourers. It is contended by the respondents that the writ petition is filed without any bonafides and only with an intention to deprive employment to the dependent of the deceased employee. 3. From the facts and circumstances narrated WP(C).No.24653/2011 3 above as well as rival contentions raised at the Bar, it is revealed that the 6th respondent is raising claim for employment in the estate of the petitioners. But we are of the considered opinion that they can pursue such claims only through legal methods as permissible under law. On the basis of such a claim respondents 6 and 7 or anybody supporting them are not entitled to take law into their own hands and to create any physical obstructions. We notice the averments in the counter affidavit that no such physical obstruction is caused. 4. Therefore we dispose of the writ petition directing the 5th respondent to take effective steps if intimation is received with respect to any physical obstructions caused to the petitioners and their workers in carrying out works in the plantation, and to remove such obstruction and to afford protection for the functioning of the estate, if found necessary. 5. However, we make it clear that the above WP(C).No.24653/2011 4 directions will not stand in the way of the 6th respondent approaching any competent authority raising claim for employment as stated above and the benefits if any due. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).No.24653/2011 5