IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7974 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KUNHIMON, AGED 45 YRS. S/O.BAPUTTI HAJI, RAYINMARAKKAR HOUSE PALLAPRAM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO THE HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALATHUR. 4. C.I. OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE. 5. S.I. POLICE, CHITTUR. 6. LAKSHMI, W/O.GOVINDA BOYEN AKHILANDAPURAM POST, SINGANALLUR, POLLACHI TALUK. 7. DHARMARAJ,S/O.GOVINDA BOYEN M.PUDUR, KARADIKUNNU KADU, GOVINDAPURAM CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 8. NAGARAJ, S/O.GOVINDA BOYEN AKHILANDAPURAM POST, SINGANALLUR, POLLACHI TALUK. 9. SELVARAJ, S/O.GOVINDA BOYEN HOUSE NO.II/11, NAGAMAI NAGAR POST MAKKINAMPATHY, POLLACHI. 10. KANAKARAJ, S/O.GOVINDA BOYEN LEELAVATHY HOUSE, THANGA GAUNDER LAYOUT THERKU THOTTAM, PERICHIPALAYAM, THIRUPUR-8. 11. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O.SUBRAMANYAN AKHILANDAPURAM POST, SINGANALLUR, POLLACHI TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. SALIM P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ======================= W.P.(C)NO. 7974 of 2008-Y ======================== DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of some properties having an extent of about 10 acres with late Govinda Boyen. The said Govinda Boyen received substantial part of the sale consideration. But before the sale deed was executed, he passed away. Later his legal heirs, respondents 6 to 11, received further amounts towards the sale consideration and he was put in possession of the property also. But recently, the party respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner . They are not keen to execute the sale deed also. In the above background, the petitioner filed petition, Ext.P2 before the police. The prayer in the petition reads as follows: WPC.7974/2008 -2- “Hence it is most humbly prayed that the respondents may be summoned and directed to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and complete all formalities thereto after accepting the balance sale consideration deducting the loss caused to the petitioner solely due to the respondents illegal acts.” 2. Thereafter this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby direct the respondents 1 to 5 to give adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner from the respondents 6 to 11.” 3. Going by the prayers in Ext.P1, we are of the view that this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. The police do not owe any duty to the petitioner in this regard and the petitioner does not have any corresponding legal right also. Therefore, the prayer for mandamus against the police fails. But the petitioner points out that in the writ petition he has sought for protection to the life of the petitioner also. But we notice that there is no such prayer in the representation filed by WPC.7974/2008 -3- him before the police. The allegation of threat to his life is added only to buttress his arguments. If the petitioner goes around attending to his normal business or remain at home, there will be no threat to his life. Only when he goes to the disputed property, there is alleged threat to his life, even according to the petitioner. Therefore, we are not justified in granting any protection to the petitioner for his life, so as to tilt the balance against the party respondents in the civil dispute. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. This is done without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- P.N. RAVINDRAN , JUDGE ks. WPC.7974/2008 -4- The petitioner is running a small industrial unit assembling and repairing elevators. He submits that the loading and unloading work in his establishment are done by his skilled workers. Recently the workmen under the third respondent union have staked their claim for the said work and they are causing obstruction. Therefore, he moved before the police for necessary protection to do the loading and unloading work in his establishment. Thereafter this writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment were being done by the workmen under the third respondent upto 31-10-2007. Thereafter the petitioner has to start doing the loading and unloading work by engaging some of the skilled workers and some workers outside. This being a scheme covered area. The workmen of the local pool of the head load workers are entitled to the loading and unloading work, it is submitted. 3. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that at present there is no dispute between the parties WPC.7974/2008 -5- pending either before the police or before the 4th respondent, D.L.O. 4. The 4th respondent is therefore directed to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner to do the loading and unloading work for using his own workmen and also the claim of the third respondent that the work should be done by the workmen under him . The parties may appear before the District Labour Officer along with a copy of this order on 13-3-2008 at 11 a.m. The 4th respondent shall take a decision on the dispute after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the third respondent, if possible on the said date or at any rate, within two days. If the claim of the third respondent is upheld, the petitioner shall engage them, otherwise the petitioner will be free to do his own workmen. If there is obstruction caused, the police shall remove the obstruction from the part of the third respondent or his supporters. The parties will be free to work out their remedies against the decision of the D.L.O., if they are aggrieved. So long as the orders of the D.L.O. are in force, the same shall be respected by both parties. Handover to both parties. WPC.7974/2008 -6- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN , JUDGE ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================