IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38705 of 2010(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOBY JACOB, S/O.M.M.CHACKO, MACHATHIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, MANAGING PARTNER, UNITED GROUP. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA-685 508. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI-685 603. 3. C.I.T.U., KATTAPPANA SOUTH UNIT, REP. BY SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA SOUTH P.O., PIN-685 515. 4. I.N.T.U.C., KATTAPPANA SOUTH UNIT, REP. BY SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA SOUTH P.O., PIN-685 515. 5. B.M.S., KATTAPPANA SOUTH UNIT, REP. BY SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA SOUTH P.O., PIN-685 515. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 38705/2010(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. B3-397/2010-11 DATED 14/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTAITON DATED 13/12/2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.342/2010 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UPON RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 38705 of 2010-K ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of appropriate direction under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection for him against the culpable and violent conduct of respondents 3 to 5. According to the petitioner, he wants to get the work of construction of a metal crusher done using exclusively mechanical devices. Respondents 3 to 5, claiming to be trade unions of workmen, are raising illegal and unjustified objections to such activity by the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes unambiguously that he does not want to employ any loading and unloading worker in connection with the said work. Respondents 3 to 5 and members of those unions want to claim and extract amounts W.P.(C) No. 38705 of 2010 -: 2 :- from the petitioner without performing any work. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondents 3 to 5 have been served. There is no appearance for respondents 3 to 5. 3. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that at the moment in the perception of respondents 1 and 2 there is absolutely no objection against the carrying on of the work of establishing metal crusher unit. If no loading and unloading worker is employed by the petitioner, it shall be ensured that the petitioner is permitted to carry on the work without any obstruction from respondents 3 to 5. But it may be ensured that the petitioner sticks to his undertaking that work shall be got done by him without employing any worker for loading and unloading work. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute regarding employment of workmen other than loading and unloading workers. No orders are sought in respect of such work by the workmen other than loading and unloading workers, stipulates the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. We do note that respondents 3 to 5 have not entered W.P.(C) No. 38705 of 2010 -: 3 :- appearance. We do further record the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner does not want to employ any worker for loading and unloading work. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the work is being carried on without employing any loading and unloading worker. We record the further submission of the petitioner that the petitioner seeks protection only against the interference by loading and unloading workers and the petitioner does not seek any direction so far as the other workmen are concerned. 5. In the light of the circumstances recorded above, we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that respondents 1 and 2 shall afford adequate protection. If there is any obstruction to the work carried on without employment of any loading and unloading worker and if there is any obstruction from loading and unloading workers. 6. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed in part. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge