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 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22071 of 2011(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ HABBY SHEEBAN,W/OP.T.A.SHEEBAN, AGED 35 HAVING OFFICE AT CAREERGATE,DOOR NO.5, KATTIKKARAN BUILDING,KATTIKKARAN ROAD,COCHIN-18, RESIDING AT,THAISUVALAPPIL HOUSE,KARUKULANGARA, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM.-682016 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION,IRINJALAKUDA.-680121 3. ARJUN PRASAD,S/O.RAJENDRA PRASAD, TC 63/2177,SREERAMABHAVAN,AMBALATHARA,POONTHURA(PO) TRIVANDRUM,KERALA.-695010 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22071 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DT.31/03/10 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE APPOINTING THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF THE PETITIONER 10/09/10 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY RAFFAELLO SHIPPING SERVICE DT.15/01/11 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OF RAFFAELLO SHIPPING SERVICE DT.15/01/11 EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE C.I. OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM DT.04/08/11 EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DT.10/08/11 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.22071 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner is the partner of a firm engaged in the business of providing employment to candidates in ships. The firm is a sub agent of a shipping company situated in Dubai and is authorised to recruit employees to various posts. The petitioner offered job to the 3rd respondent in a shipping company, for which the agreement was for payment of total amount of ` 1,25,000/- to the shipping company towards deposit, processing charges, travelling expenses etc. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was recruited for employment as evidenced from Exts.P3 and P4. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent had paid a sum of ` 65,000/- to the petitioner as service charges, in connection with the recruitment, and he joined the job. W. P. C. No.22071 of 2011 -2- 2. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent quit the job, which according to the petitioner is due to his inexperience to the intricacies of the voyage. After returning to India the 3rd respondent started pressurising the petitioner for return of the total amount paid to the shipping company. However, in order to avoid confrontation, the petitioner has offered to return the sum of ` 65,000/- paid to her. But the 3rd respondent refused to accept and he is making all sorts of threats demanding the entire amount of ` 1,25,000/- also, which was paid to the shipping company. The 3rd respondent is creating all sorts of threats and intimidation to the life of the petitioner and he is creating trouble to the functioning of the firm. Eventhough the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 complaint before the first respondent, no effective steps were taken. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Inspite of service of notice from this Court, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance or to contest the matter. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, on the basis W. P. C. No.22071 of 2011 -3- of instructions received, submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent pertains to the employment secured in a shipping company from which the 3rd respondent quit subsequently. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is raising claim for return of the entire money which he had paid, for which the petitioner is not amenable. It is also stated that even though the petitioner had offered payment of some amount, such an offer is not acceptable to the 3rd respondent. However, the police had instructed the parties not to indulge in any sort of violence, threat or other such activities. 4. From the facts and circumstances as narrated, we are of the opinion that if the 3rd respondent has got any claim regarding return of the amounts paid for securing the job, he has to seek appropriate legal remedy available under common law. The 3rd respondent is not entitled to take law into his own hands and to create any sort of threat or violence to the petitioner or to the functioning of her firm. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing W. P. C. No.22071 of 2011 -4- the respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps if any intimation is received regarding any threat, obstruction or violence caused by the 3rd respondent or anybody claiming under him, to the life and property of the petitioner or to her business activities. 6. We make it clear that this will not cause any prejudice to any legal action which may be taken by the 3rd respondent claiming return of the amount. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-