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. 37435 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, GAOGO INTERNATIONAL, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM. 2. T.D.THOMAS, A.T.S.AGENCIES, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 673 001. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 686 001. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 682 011. 6. VINOD, PROPRIETOR, V.K.AGENCIES, MUTTIPALAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, (G.TRACK BEACH ROAD, AVIKKARA). 676 121. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH 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. 37435/2010(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/12/2010 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(a):COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 10/12/2010 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - 1, HOSDURG. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.37435 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners had come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 5 against the alleged illegal, contumacious culpable and violent acts of the 6th respondent. 2. There evidently are disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and the 6th respondent on the other. The 1st petitioner claims to have appointed the 6th respondent as his dealer. That dealership arrangement has now been put an end to. There are disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 6th respondent. The 2nd petitioner is a dealer now appointed by the petitioner. To put it in a nut shell, the grievance of the petitioners is that the 6th respondent, with whom the 1st petitioner has disputes, is attempting to forcibly and violently deter the petitioners from carrying on their activity. 3. Notice was served on the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent has entered appearance. The 6th respondent has a totally different version to advance. The 6th respondent accepts W.P(C) No.37435 of 2010 2 that the 6th respondent does not now want to work as a dealer under the 1st petitioner. There are disputes between them about settlement of accounts etc. Parties will necessarily have to get such disputes resolved in accordance with law. 3. The present controversy is about the alleged illegal and violent acts on the part of the 6th respondent against the petitioners. The 6th respondent denies the said allegations totally. According to the 6th respondent, the boot is on the other leg and the 6th respondent was constrained to complain before the Judicial Magistrate of the Ist Class, Hosdurg. Ext.R6(a) was filed before the learned Magistrate. The 6th respondent submits that he has no intention in any way to cause illegal obstruction. The 6th respondent shall not cause any obstruction to the petitioners for the conduct of their business. In short, the 6th respondent denies any intention on his part to interfere or obstruct the business of the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that if there be any genuine complaint of any illegal, contumacious, violent and culpable conduct on the part of the 6th respondent, the petitioners can lodge a complaint before the police officials and necessary action shall be taken by W.P(C) No.37435 of 2010 3 the concerned police official. In the perception of respondents 1 to 5, at the moment, there is no such threat for the petitioners from the 6th respondent. 5. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no specific directions are necessary. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 that if the petitioners have any genuine complaint, they can lodge complaints before respondents 1 to 5, who shall take necessary remedial action. Recording the above submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/