IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14990 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.C.BOSE, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PARAYANKARIYIL VEEDU, PADINJATTUM BHAGOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR CIRCLE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. JAISON JOSEPH, UDICHA MUKALEL, ATHIRAMPUZHA.P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. V.N.RAJAPPAN, SHOP EMPLOYEE, T.S.NO.10, (ETTUMANOOR VADAKKU) THAVAZHAKUZHI JUNCTION, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. 5. K.M.SABU, KALLUVETTEL, PUNNATHURA WEST P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI & SMT.S.SHEEJA KUMARY(AYOOR) FOR R3 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No. 14990/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPIES OF 1ST AND LAST PAGE OF LICENCE NO.272/08-09. EXT.P2: TRUE COPIES OF LETTER NO.K1 TAPAL/2902/07/2506 DATED 26.7.07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)No.24697/07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5-3835/07 DATED 6.3.08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.3.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL A/D CARD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P5. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)No.10209/08. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF PERMIT NO.71/08-09/ID/1 HY DATED 1.4.08. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE UNION NOTICE DATED 18.5.08. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18.5.08. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 18.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.326/08 RESPONDENT'S EXT: EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 23.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14990 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MAY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the licensee of T.S.No.12 (Vallikkad) of Ettumanoor Excise Range. He submits that he was the licensee of the shop for the last few years. Respondent No.5 was a worker who was deployed from T.S.No.10, Thavalakkuzhi to the petitioner's shop. Recently, based on the motion made by the petitioner and as per the direction of this Court, the Assistant Excise Commissioner has ordered as per Exhibit P4 to redeploy the 5th respondent from the petitioner's shop to Thavalakuzhi shop. The petitioner submits that on receipt of that order, he immediately implemented it. That means now he is not engaging the 5th respondent in his shop. It is also submitted that the 5th respondent challenged that order before this Court and this Court turned away him directing him to invoke the statutory remedy available to him. Pursuant to that order, the 5th respondent moved the Excise Commissioner challenging Exhibit P4. The petitioner submits that it appears that the matter has already been heard and reserved for orders by the Excise Commissioner, but no notice has been served on him. Feeling aggrieved by the implementation of Exhibit P4 by the W.P.(C)No.14990/08 -2- petitioner, 5th respondent along with respondents, 3, 4 and others are causing obstruction to the functioning of the shop. They are even preventing the unloading of toddy brought from outside. So, the petitioner has preferred Exhibit P11 petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor seeking necessary protection. Since no help was extended by the Police, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations against the party respondents. It is also submitted that the appeal against Exhibit P4 has been heard by the Excise Commissioner and it is reserved for orders. The 5th respondent also points out that the workmen have moved the conciliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act against the denial of employment to the 5th respondent in T.S.No.12. The toddy has been brought to the shop without proper permit for the same, and the petitioner seeks protection to continue his illegal activities, it is submitted. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that on the basis of the information lodged by the petitioner, a crime has been registered against the 5th respondent and others and at present there is no law and order problem. The Police is keeping surveillance in the area to maintain law and order. 4. As long as Exhibit P4 is in force, the petitioner may be justified in not engaging the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent may work out his W.P.(C)No.14990/08 -3- remedies against denial of employment and establish his right before appropriate forums. But the said respondent and his supporters have no right to physically obstruct the functioning of the shop or to prevent the entry of the customers by taking law into their hands. So, if there is any physical obstruction to the customers and workers of the petitioner and loading/unloading of the toddy lawfully brought to the shop, the petitioner may inform the Police. In that event the Police shall remove the obstruction. This order will not affect the rights of the workmen or unions for holding peaceful demonstrations or public meetings or dharnas to highlight their grievances. The direction to grant protection will be subject to any orders of the competent authority that may be passed on the claim of the 5th respondent for his retention in the petitioner's shop. If there is any order in favour of the 5th respondent and against the petitioner, the police protection granted by this judgment will not be available to flout such orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn