IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14086 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUGATHAN K.N., S/O. NEELAKANDAN, POORAAM VEEDU, MADATHARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.A.YAHIAKHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SURESH P, S.K. BHAVAN, KOLLAYIL P.O., CONVENOR, CITU, MADATHARA UNIT. 2. SUBHA KUMAR, VILAYIL VEEDU, SIVAN MUKKU, MADATHARA P.O., CONVENOR, AITUC, MADATHARA UNIT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALOD POLICE STATION, PALOD. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALODE POLICE STATION, PALOD. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), SP OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE FOR R1-2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.14086/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FARM. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DT. 14.5.2009 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION MADE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION MADE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DT. 11.3.2005. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DT. 14.5.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R1A: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ON 14.5.2009. EXT.R1B : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ON 21.2.2009. KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.14086 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and for the functioning of the cattle farm. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to take appropriate action over Exts.P3 to P5. It is submitted that being an agricultural operation the petitioner is entitled to engage his own workers for the work. Learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that this is a scheme covered area and the registered headload workers have been doing the work. We find that the issue as to whether the agricultural operations is covered by the Headload Workers Act has been considered by this court in Jayaprakash v. W.P(C)No.14086/2009 -:2:- Superintendent of Police, 2006 (2) KLT 41, wherein it has been held as follows:- “The legislative policy appears to be that the said enactment is applicable only to named commercial activities alone and so long as paddy cultivation does not come within its coverage, the claims of the respondents necessary will have to be brushed aside. It would be rather preposterous to suggest that an agriculturist has to register himself with the Committee under the Headload Workers Act, pay levy and request for deputation of workmen, when year round he is engaging regular workmen, and they are prepared as well as entitled to attend to every work relating to agricultural activities. The petitioners have the right to engage their own employees for the works relating to agricultural operations, namely loading and unloading works of paddy. It may also include operations such as unloading/loading work of straw, seeds, manure and the like. The workers registered under the Headload Workers Act have no legally enforceable right for insisting that any of such work is to be reserved for them.” Cattle farm being an agricultural operation we make it clear that the petitioners are free to engage his own workmen for functioning the cattle farm. In the event of any obstruction, the Police shall render necessary assistance and protection. Since there is a dispute as to whether the unloading of cattle is also part of the agricultural operation, we make it clear that being an W.P(C)No.14086/2009 -:3:- ancillary activity it is certainly part of the functioning of the farm, provided the same is done in the premises of the farm. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------- W.P(C) No.14086 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 12th August, 2009