IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25478 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MRIDHUL TIMBERS PVT.LTD, REG. OFFICE VENGINISSERI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.SALEESH, KOTTUNGAL HOUSE, P.O.PARALAM, VENGINISSERI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.S.JASMINE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM.PIN. 681 801. 2. C.I.T.U., CHIRAKKADAVU, PONKUNNAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, I.S.RAMACHANDRAN, VALIPLACKAL, P.N.T.ROAD, PONKUNNAM. PIN.681 801. 3. I.N.T.U.C., REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY MATHEW, PUNNATHANAM, VAZHOOR EAST.P.O., 19TH MILE, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM.PIN.681 801. 4. AITUC, REPRESETNED BY GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KALARIPLACKAL, MUTTATHU KAVALA, CHIRAKKADAVU, PONKUNNAM. PIN.681 801. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISHMA. ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R2-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.25478 OF 2010 H PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY CHIRAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 7.8.2010 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR RECEIPT OF THE PETITION FOR POLICE PROTECTION. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.3.2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.7655/2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.2057/10 DATED 26.04.10 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //True copy// PS to Judge K.M. JOSEPH & M. C. HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 25478 OF 2010 H ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd December, 2010. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: "Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner Company for loading and unloading the timber at the stockyard belonging to the Company at Chirakkadavu, Ponkunnam using crane and a crane operator and two helpers employed by the Company". 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 2 Petitioner is carrying on business of purchasing and selling all types of timbers in Venginissery, Thrissur. Petitioner wanted to start a unit at Chirakadavu, Ponkunnam. The Company purchased a property there which is being used as a stockyard of timber. Petitioner is using a crane and one crane operator and two helpers employed by the petitioner. No more workmen is needed by the petitioner. There is reference to obstruction by respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioner is before this Court. 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed by the petitioner. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. We had passed an interim order dated 17.8.2010 which reads as follows: "There will be an interim order directing first respondent to provide protection to the petitioner for loading and unloading the timber at the stockyard W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 3 covered by Ext.P1 licence, using crane and crane operator employed by the Company as against any obstruction from the members of respondents 2 to 4 for a period of three weeks." Subsequently, we have clarified it in I.A.No.12344/2010 as follows: "We clarify that police protection to load and unload timber will also be applicable to the stockyard of the petitioner in Sy.No.66/12-2, 66/13-1 of Chirakkadavu Village where the timber is stocked and that two persons can be employed for operating the crane. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there is any loading and unloading work to be done manually, petitioner will engage members of respondents 2 to 4. The interim order will continue for ten days." 5. Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has permitted only two workers for operating the crane. She would submit that apart from W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 4 the driver, two helpers are required for operating the crane. According to the learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader, two workers alone are sufficient. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out Ext.P4 order wherein, without specifying any number as such, the persons to operate the crane were given protection. We feel that as long as the petitioner has a right to do the work mechanically and if the petitioner is not doing the work of loading and unloading manually, it may be open to the petitioner to have three workers in all for carrying out the work of operating the crane for the purpose of doing loading and unloading work mechanically. In such circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the interim order as clarified by the order dated 9.9.2010 in I.A.No.12344/2010, subject to the modification that instead of two persons, three persons can be employed for operating the crane. Needless to say, the direction will include the recording of the submission of the counsel for petitioner that if any loading and W.P.(C).NO.25478/2010 H 5 unloading work has to be done manually, petitioner will engage members of respondents 2 to 4. We make it abundantly clear that the three persons who are allowed by us will not be employed for loading and unloading work manually and they are allowed only for the purpose of operating the crane. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge