IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29095 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - LEGAL, MR.M.V.H.MENON. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.V.J.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM RANGE, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENMALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. MAMBAZHATHARA SALIM, 'VAHEED BUILDING', EADPALAYAM MURI, KAZHUTHURUTHY, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R8 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 29095 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., who owns Nagamally, Isfield and Venture Estates jointly called the Venture Valley Group of Estates, have filed this writ petition seeking effective and adequate police protection to the properties of the petitioner and for the lives of its employees and for ensuring that there is no violence and slogans shouting by the 8th respondent and persons supporting the 8th respondent and that no obstruction is caused to the free ingress and egress of the executive staff, customers business associates, vehicles and smooth conduct of the business of the above mentioned Venture Valley Group of Estates of the petitioner. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission, this court on 15/10/2009 passed the following interim order; " Govt. Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. Notice by special messenger to WPC.No.29095/2009 2 respondents 6 to 8. Post on 22/10/2009. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the police to ensure that law and order is maintained." 3. Later in modification of that interim order, this court passed an interim order on 3/11/2009 which is as follows ; " There will be a direction to the Respondents 1 to 7 to render adequate and effective protection to the managing staff and workers of the petitioner, the smooth functioning of group of estates consisting of Nagamally Estate, Venture Estate and Isfiled Estate . This order will not stand in the way of the eighth respondent as the agitating workers in recording their protest in accordance with law and it will not in any way cause obstruction to the functioning of the estates." 4. This was followed by yet another interim order on 8/12/2009 which is as follows; "There will be a direction to respondents 2,4,5,6 and 7 to render adequate and effective WPC.No.29095/2009 3 police protection to the petitioner for the smooth functioning of Nagamally, Isfield and Venture estates jointed called the Venture Valley Group of Estates against any interference on the part of the 8th respondent or his henchmen. There will be a direction to the 8th respondent to be present before this court on 15/12/2009." 5. Pursuant to the above interim order, the 8th respondent appeared before this court. It was submitted by him that he did not in any way interfere with the functioning of the estate. He claimed that he had only resorted to peaceful modes of agitation for recording their protest. He made a further submission that interim orders issued by this court may not stand in the way of peaceful agitations being conducted. This court would observe that there is no basis of the apprehension of the 8th respondent that interim orders passed by this court stands in the way of peaceful agitation and thereafter this court directed the petitioner and to the respondents to co-operate with the functions of estates as the conciliation officer is trying to bring forth a conciliation of the dispute in question. WPC.No.29095/2009 4 6. Today when this writ petition is listed for final hearing, it was submitted by Sri.Benny P.Thomas learned counsel for the petitioner that 8th respondent continues to create trouble. 7. The learned counsel for the 8th respondent would take exception to the above submission of Mr.Benny .P.Thomas. According to the learned counsel, the 8th respondent has no objection in the interim orders continuing. The 8th respondent should be permitted to stage peaceful agitation voicing his grievances and the grievances of the workers affiliated to his union. 7. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the interim orders dated 15/10/2009, 3/11/2009 and 8/12/2009 can be made absolute. Those interim orders are accordingly made absolute. We record the assurance of the 8th respondent given to us that he does not intend to indulge any aggressive agitation or to interfere with the smooth conduct of the estates and factories of the petitioners. Though this judgment is not intended to operate against the conduct of really peaceful agitation by the 8th respondent (agitation which will not amount to violation of the WPC.No.29095/2009 5 interim orders which we have confirmed), we specifically direct respondents 6 and 7 to take prompt action if and when complaints are received from the functionaries of the petitioner company of any law and order situation in any one of their estates resulting from any agitation conducted by the 8th respondent and his followers. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk