IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32804 of 2011(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- ALEXANDER JOHN, CONTRACTOR, MUKALUVILA, KIZHAKKETHERUVU P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI. K.I. SAGEER IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM- 691 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM- 691 001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION, PALLITHOTTAM P.O, KOLLAM- 691 006. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM- 691 001. 5. THE DIRECTOR, INLAND NAVIGATION DIRECTORATE, KALLADA HOUSE, ASHRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN-691 002. 6. BINU, CARPENTER, H & C COLONY, PALLITHOTTAM P.O, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 001. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 32804 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTICE DTD.21.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCEPTED SCHEDULE OF WORK INCORPORATED ALONG WITH EXT.P1 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 07/DIR/INDT/2011-12 DTD. 06.06.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 15.06.011 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, INLAND NAVIGATION SECTION, KOLLAM-9 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.32804 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose The petitioner, a Contractor has filed this Writ Petition seeking police protection for the smooth execution of the work awarded to him by the 5th respondent, the Directorate of Inland Navigation under Exts.P1 to P4 freed of threats and interference from the part of 6th respondent and his henchmen. There is further prayer that the police officers be directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation. Even though the 6th respondent was served with notice by Special Messenger he has not turned up before this Court. Thus the averment in the Writ Petition against 6th respondent stands established by non-traverse. 2. On behalf of the State Attorney it was submitted by Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Senior Government Pleader that certain pipelines were damaged during the course of W. P. C. No.32804 of 2011 -2- execution of the work by the petitioner. The 6th respondent and people under him protested demanding immediate restoration of the pipeline to their original condition. But for this the 6th respondent has no objection in the petitioner executing the work. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Exts.P1 to P4, the petitioner is bound to complete the work in a time bound manner. Hence, police protection has to be granted for execution of the work. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the police protection direction sought for can be granted. At the same time, we keep in mind the objections raised by the 6th respondent in the matter as conveyed to us by the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State Attorney. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions:- 5. The 3rd respondent is directed to afford requisite protection to the petitioner for execution of the work allotted W. P. C. No.32804 of 2011 -3- to him by the 5th respondent under Exts.P1 to P4 free from any obstruction by 6th respondent and men under him. The 3rd respondent is further directed to conduct an enquiry into the complaint of the 6th respondent that the pipelines have been damaged during the course of execution of the work. As part of the enquiry, the 3rd respondent shall summon the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent and the 3rd respondent shall make every endeavour to resolve the above dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE W. P. C. No.32804 of 2011 -4-