IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15445 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LAKSHMANAN.K.P., S/O.POLAN.K, SREE NILAYAM, PARIYARAMKUNNU, MANANTHAVADY, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY. 3. THE SECRETARY, HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU), MANANTHAVADY. 4. K.V.MOHANAN, LDF DISTRICT CONVENOR, CPI (M) OFFICE, ERUMATHERUVU, MANANTHAVADY. 5. SAHADEVAN.P.V, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CONVENOR, KALPETTA, WYNAD. 6. SOOREJ, INDIAN COFFEE HOUSE, MANDYH, WYNAD DISTRICT. 7. N.M.ANTONY, AREA SECRETARY, PARK VIEW TOWER, GANDHI PARK, MANANTHAVADY. 8. THAJUDHEEN.C.K., WORKER, MANOJ GAS AGENCIES, MANANTHAVADY. 9. FIROZ, WORKER, MANOJ GAS AGENCIES, MANANTHAVADY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.15445 OF 2010: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.5.1991. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 14.5.2010. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 15.5.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5A.TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 14.5.2010. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15445 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-- “a. to issue a writ of mandamus to the Ist and 2nd respondents to afford sufficient protection to the petitioner to run his gas agency without any interference from respondents 3 to 9 and their men. b. to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction directing the Ist and 2nd respondents to afford sufficient protection to the life and property of the petitioner.” 2. Petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe Community. He was appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd as the distributor of LPG for Mananthavady area. The allegation is that on 14.5.2010 at about 10.30 A.M respondents 3 to 9 and about 100 others who can be identified by sight trespassed into the gas agency of the petitioner, showered abusive words and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences if the he appoints new workers. It is stated that he had appointed a new worker over and above Sri.Thajudheen, Firoz and Jaleel who are members of 3rd respondent union and that it seems to have provoked them. WPC 15445/2010 -2- Petitioner filed Exts.P2 and P3 complaints. It is submitted that these respondents are active workers of CPI (M), the ruling party and that the Ist and 2nd respondents are not taking any effective steps. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 to 9 wherein it is inter alia stated as follows: Thirteen workers are engaged in the gas agency and the agency is having 20000 connections and the operation of the agency is the entire Mananthavady Taluk. The deponent is engaged from 1991 onwards and the 9th respondent from 1992 onwards. The names of the persons working in the gas agency are specifically mentioned. It is stated that there are complaints about the working of the agency in the matter of delay in distribution and also black marketing and that it is brought to the notice of the authorities. The Indian Oil Corporation itself has imposed a fine on the gas agency finding certain serious irregularities. It is stated that the attempt of the petitioner is to shift the gas agency from Mananthawady town to other area. The public got information with regard to the shifting of gas agency and they started agitation. The District Collector convened a meeting to settle the entire issue. Ext.R5(a) is the minutes of the meeting. WPC 15445/2010 -3- The matter was settled on 14.5.2010 and the writ petition is filed on 19.5.2010. It is stated that the intention of the petitioner is to disturb the decision in the meeting. It is also stated that respondents have no objection whatsoever with regard to the engaging of other persons in the gas agency in addition to the present workers. But, it shall not affect the service conditions of the present workers. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 9 and also the learned Government Pleader. We take note of Ext.R5(a), the minutes of the meeting convened by the District Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is prepared to abide by the terms of Ext.R5(a), but the petitioner apprehends that there will be obstruction from respondents 3 to 9. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 9 would point out that there is large scale complaint from public including black marketing and that protection should not be used as a cover to carry on illegal activity by the petitioner. We take note of Ext.R5(a) and we record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to abide by the terms of Ext.R5(a). We also take WPC 15445/2010 -4- note of the submission in the counter affidavit of respondents 3 to 9 that they have no objection whatsoever with regard to the engaging of other persons in the gas agency in addition to the present workers on condition that their condition of service is not affected and we direct that in case even after the petitioner abides the terms of Ext.R5(a) there is obstruction by the members of 3rd respondent and respondents 4 to 9 effective protection will be granted to the petitioner by the Ist respondent for the running of his gas agency. We, however, make it clear that this judgment should not be understood as an obligation on the part of the Ist respondent to grant protection even if the petitioner purports to run the unit by violating any of the provisions of law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS