IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 163 of 2011(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.SHEREENA,VAZHAMKULAM HOUSE, ANAKUZHIKADU, MALAMPUZHA. 2. JOHNSON.A, FATHIMA HOUSE, ANAKKAL PO, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION,MALAMPUZHA 678 651. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA 678 651. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA 678 651. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.163 OF 2011(U) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exts.P1 and P2 are the agreements entered into by the petitioners with the 2nd respondent for operating the boat service in the Malampuzha Dam. These agreements are valid till 17.3.2011. During the currency of the agreements, Exts.P10 and P11 were issued by the 2nd respondent preventing the petitioners from plying boats on the allegation that they did not provide adequate safety requirements in the boats. On the allegation that despite having issued Exts.P10 and P11, petitioners still continued to operate the boats they were again issued Exts.P13 and P14 communications by the 4th respondent. It is challenging Exts.P10,P11,P13 and P14 that this writ petition has filed. 2. The case was adjourned with a direction to the Government Pleader to obtain instructions. On instructions the Government Pleader submits that various complaints were received against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners were plying boats without providing any safety equipments. It was therefore that the aforesaid communications were issued. WPC.No. 163/2011 :2 : 3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the boats have all safety requirements and therefore according to him, the allegation on the basis of which Exts.P10, P11, P13 and P14 were issued is baseless. 4. Essentially therefore, this is a matter for the 2nd respondent to satisfy as to whether the boats do have safety requirements. If such equipments have been satisfied by the petitioners, there is no reason why the petitioners shall not be permitted to operate the boats during the currency of Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to file appropriate representations, detailing the safety facilities that they have provided in the boats, which they are plying, in which event the second respondent shall inspect the boats and if he is satisfied that the petitioners have complied with the safety requirements, the 2nd respondent will issue orders, withdrawing Exts.P10,P11,P13 and P14 and enable the petitioners to ply the boats during the contract period. The aforesaid process shall be completed immediately on the production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. VI (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) WPC.No. 163/2011 :3 :