IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30488 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. V.K.BALACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT 'JAYANT', VALANKALLINGAL HOUSE, AZHIYANNOOR P.O., PARASSERY, PALAKKAD-678 633. 2. P.GOPINATHAN, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PUNCHAPADOM P.O., KADAMBAZHIPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-678 634. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION (C.I.T.U), PALAKKAD. 4. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O.ABDUL RAZACK, RESIDING AT VADAKKUM KUNNIL PARAMBIL (THALISSERY KUNNU), EZHAKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 15.10.2009. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 16.10.09. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 30488 of 2009 E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioners filed this writ petition for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to render adequate and sufficient police protection to them to conduct the bus service on the route Palakkad -Cherplasserry using stage carriage KL-9/N 9934 and also to consider Exts.P1 and P2 on merits. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioners is as follows. The first petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage. It has been transferred to the second respondent. The 4th respondent was accommodated as a Cleaner in the bus when regular hand was on leave. He is now seeking regular appointment and causing W.P.(C).No. 30488 of 2009 2 obstruction to the plying of the bus. The petitioner filed complaint before respondents 1 and 2 seeking adequate police protection against respondents 3 and 4. But no action was taken. Hence he filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. In the nature of the case, we think that the petitioner should be granted an order for police protection. Apparently there may be labour disputes, but respondents 3 and 4 are not entitled to take law into their hands. But at the same time, it is open to them to pursue their claims before appropriate forum. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner against respondents 3 and 4 for the conduct of stage carriage of the second petitioner. But at the same time, we make it W.P.(C).No. 30488 of 2009 3 clear that it is without prejudice to the right of respondents 3 and 4 to pursue their claim in appropriate forum. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm