IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25218 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THOMAS GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, MODI BUILERS, NO.1/426 A, NELLAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN, SRI.EBY AUGUSTINE, SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 4. R. AJI KUMAR, VENGA VILAI, MULAMKUZHI. P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629 702. 5. A. RAJAN, KUMUTTI VILAI, MULAMKUZHI. P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629 702. 6. RAMESH, VENGA VILAI, MULAMKUZHI. P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629 702. 7. T. SATHEESH KUMAR, KUNNU VILAI, MULAMKUZHI. P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629 702. WP(C).No. 25218 of 2011(B) 8. ANIL KUMAR, SECRETARY, BHARATHEEYA JANATHA PARTY, (YUVAMORCHA), PULLAD SAGHA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 9. UNNIKRISHNAN, KOYIPURAM PANCHAYATH MEMBER, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, BHARATHEEYA JANATHA PARTY, (YUVAMORCHA), PULLAD SAGHA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. R4 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS, SMT.S.SIKKY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 25218 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX (KVAT). EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.22.6.2011. EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DTD.16.1.2011. EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DTD.16.1.2011. EXT.P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS, OF THE PETITIONERS VILLA PROJECT. EXT.P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD.21.9.2011. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/09/2011 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THE INCIDENT DATED 24/09/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP GIVEN TO 6TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 25218 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim ,J. This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the 1st respondent to grant adequate police protection to the lives of the petitioner and his employees and to his property, against the illegal and unlawful obstruction alleged to have caused by respondents 4 to 9 or by any person acting under them. 2. Averments in the writ petition are to the effect that, the petitioner had undertaken construction of a 'Villa project' in 1.25 Acres of land owned by him, situated in Koyipuram village. It is stated that the civil construction was entrusted to the 4th respondent on the basis of Ext.P2 contract. But the 4th respondent received amounts much more than what is actually due, and therefore the petitioner was constrained to withhold further payments. It is alleged that, at the instigation of the 4th respondent, the 5th respondent, who was an employee of the 4th respondent and an active worker of the political party of BJP WP(C).No.25218/2011 2 started creating obstructions to the construction works, with the support of respondents 8 and 9 who are activists of the said political party. The petitioner was threatened and detained in his car by the said persons on public road, and he was released only at the intervention of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter the obstructors have threatened the workers of the petitioners and forced them to stop the work. It is stated that inspite of Ext.P4 complaint submitted before the 2nd respondent, no effective protection was granted to the petitioner and his construction works. It is alleged that the contesting respondents are now creating all sorts of obstructions by planting flags in the petitioner's property and preventing the works engaged by the petitioner from continuing with the construction activities. It is further stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, on 24.9.2011 during night the respondents 8 and 9 and their supporters have trespassed into the property and caused considerable damage to the buildings constructed therein. Under such circumstances the petitioner is seeking direction to afford effective police protection. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, all WP(C).No.25218/2011 3 the allegations are denied. It is contended that there is arrears of wages due for payment from the petitioner to respondents 5 to 7, and those respondents have only raised claims for payment of such amounts. They have also raised a labour dispute before the District Labour Officers in this regard. It is further stated that a complaint in this regard was also filed against the petitioner, before the police authorities. However it is conceded that the respondents 4 to 9 are not intending to create any threat to the lives of the petitioner or his workers nor causing any obstruction to the construction activities. It is stated that they are only conducting peaceful agitations and demonstrations in view of the existing labour dispute. Further contention is that the petitioner owes very huge amounts to various Banks and other financial institutions and that he had cheated many intending purchasers of villas. It is also contended that the South Indian Bank had taken over possession of the property belonging to the petitioner in a proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, and a Board has been displayed in the property intimating the take over. 4. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions received submitted that a criminal case was WP(C).No.25218/2011 4 registered against the petitioner as crime No.431/11 of Koyipuram Police Station on the basis of complaint received from respondents 5 to 7 for offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. It is also stated that another criminal case is pending against the petitioner before the Thiruvalla Police Station as crime No.747/2010 on the allegation of cheating. It is further stated that on the basis of complaint of the petitioner regarding the illegal detentions and obstructions another case was registered as crime No.435/2011 and it is being investigated . However it is stated that the complaint received from the petitioner regarding the damages caused to the construction will be properly enquired and necessary actions will be taken. 5. From the facts and circumstances as narrated above and considering the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we find that the allegation is that the respondents 5 to 7 are taking law into their own hands and creating physical obstructions under the guise of the claim for arrears of wages, for which they ehave no manner of rights. The legal remedy left open to them in such case, if any claim exists, is to approach the appropriate authorities and to seek recourse under law. Respondents 4 to 9 WP(C).No.25218/2011 5 have no right to trespass into the property of the petitioner or to conduct any sort of agitations or demonstrations within the said property. 6. Therefore respondents 2 and 3 are directed to take effective steps to ensure that no threat to the lives of the petitioner or his workers is caused and that no physical obstruction is caused to the construction works carried out by the petitioner. It should be ensured free ingress and egress to the property of the petitioner and no obstruction or restrainment is caused to the movements of the petitioner, his workers or to the vehicular traffic to the property, including those for bringing materials of construction. 7. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand the way of the South Indian Bank proceeding against the property for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner. Nor it will not affect claims for arrears of wages, if any raised by the contesting respondents. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).No.25218/2011 6