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 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15811 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.SANTHIMADOM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS TRUST, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DR.SANTHIMADOM RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT SOUTH NALUVAZHI, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE RURAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AYYANTHOL, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SHAMEER, AGED 25, S/O.MOIDEEN, KADOM PARAMBIL HOUSE, MATTOM.P.O, ALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SAJEER, AGED 28, S/O.MOIDEEN, KADOM PARAMBIL HOUSE, MATTOM.P.O, ALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. PRABILASH, AGED 29, S/O.RAJAN, VARIYATHUPARAMBIL, POOTHANPALLI.P.O, MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R3 TO 55 SRI.P.M.BINOY KRISHNA FOR R3-TO-R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15811 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 4018/2010 DT.8.2.2010 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 20.5.2010 FOR SEEKING POLIE PROTECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 AND OTHERS WITH RECEIPT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF HOUSES WHERE THIS DEPONENT AND HIS WORKERS WERE DOING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING WORKS. // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 15811 of 2010 B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner's Trust to carry out construction work at Munimada as per the plan approved by the Grama Panchayat, Kandanassery and the life of the workers and employees of the petitioner's Trust from the illegal actions of respondents 3 to 5 and their agents. ii) issue a writ or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to maintain law and order at the petitioner's work site at Munimada, W.P.(C).No. 15811 of 2010 2 Kottapady, Mammiyoor and Mattom in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner Trust is engaged in construction of Villas at Mammiyoor, Kottapadi, Munimada and Mattam in Trichur district. Respondents 3 to 5 are the Electrical Labour contractors of the petitioner. On the basis of disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent, petitioner has cancelled the electrical labour contract work of the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent has taken charge of the electrical labour contract work. 3. On 20.5.2010 respondents 3 and 4, along with 30 other persons, trespassed into the work site and threatened the contractors with dire consequences. On enquiry it is revealed that the Sales Tax department, Trichur issued a notice to the third respondent to file return of the electrical labour contract work. The third respondent is not amenable to pay tax. It is submitted that the entire work of the W.P.(C).No. 15811 of 2010 3 petitioner is stopped due to the illegal act of respondents 3 to 5. 4. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4th respondent on behalf of respondents 3 to 5, wherein, inter alia, it is stated that the Chairman of the petitioner trust insisted the 4th respondent to file false complaint against the 5th respondent for personal reasons, but he did not agree for that. That provoked him. As a result he was not paid the electrical and plumbing labour charges for the work performed by his labourers. It is stated that the balance amount to be paid comes to Rs. 2,51,130/- On coming to know of the denial of work and labour charges, on 20.5.2010, the labourers of the 4th respodent assembled and demanded the labour charges and requested to take back their tools lying in the work site, But that was not permitted. The third respondent has not entered into any labour contract with the petitioner. The labour contract agreement was entered into with the 4th respondent and one Ragesh Manu, the son of the petitioner. A reply is also filed. W.P.(C).No. 15811 of 2010 4 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows. We record the submission of learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 that they will not obstruct the carrying out of the works by the petitioner. We also record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no objection in the 4th respondent carrying out the work and also if the 4th respondent is so inclined, to take away his tools from the site. We however, make it clear that in case there is any obstruction from respondents 3 to 5 for carrying out of the work by the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 shall afford adequate protection to the petitioner and his men for carrying out his work. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) tm Judge