IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21465 of 2011() ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAJEE. K.V, S/O.VASU, KUNNAMPILLY HOUSE, VADACODE P.O., KANGARAPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANAD POLICE STATION, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 504. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANAD POLICE STATION, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 504. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 121. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 21465 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO JCB EXCAVATOR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-07-BQ-9615. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C.3-5833/11 DATED 11/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR MAVELIKKARA GRANTING PERMISSION FOR LEVELING OF LAND COMPRISED IN RESURVEY NO.556/10/1 EXTENDING TO 14.16 ARES OF LAND IN THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.85/2010/IND DATED 05/04/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 21465 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Petitioner has approached this court seeking direction to the police against what he describes as harassment by the police. His allegation is that his JCB bearing registration No.KL-07 BQ/9615 engaged in transportation of earth on the strength of Ext.P2 on behalf of one Raju, was intercepted and seized by the police and is presently under the custody of the 4th respondent District Collector. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions submitted that the allegations of harassment by the police are without basis. It was noticed that Raju who was permitted under Ext.P2 was transporting soil, which is not authorized as per Ext.P2. It was also noticed that the petitioner's JCB did not display its registration number or the copy of Ext.P2 order on its front glass. It was also found that the transportation was after the expiry of the time permitted under Ext.P2. It was for these reasons that the vehicle was seized. WP(C) .21465/2011 2 According to the learned Government Pleader even if all the allegations are correct, the action cannot be branded as harassment. We find force in the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We permit the petitioner to approach the District Collector for release of the vehicle. The District Collector we are sure will take appropriate decision at the earliest taking into action the fact that nobody will gain by allowing the JCB to remain in the precincts of the District Collector etc. especially during this period of Monsoon. It is ordered that once the petitioner files an application, the District Collector (District Magistrate) shall pass orders within three days thereafter. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .21465/2011 3 15057 Petitioner is seeking police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and to his workers from obstructions being caused by respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner is a proprietor of a glass shop situated in traders street pala He claims to be belonging in class demolished glass also and According to the petitioner e has got expert workers for loading and unloading the work of the articles. But the respondents 3 to 5 union are creating problems and obstructing the unloading works claiming that they are registered workers being aloading and unloading in the area in question and that they are entitled to do the work of loading and unloading activities in the petitioners establishment. Contention of the petitioner is that the articles being dealt with in the petitioner shop are delicate articles those workers such will not come within the purview of Headload Worker. Falling with the definition of section 2(m) of he kerala Heaload Workers Act It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in an abundant caution permanent workers attachged to the petitiones establishment applied for registration under the rule 26 of the Kerala Act and the same is WP(C) .21465/2011 4 pending disposal before the additional 7th respondent. However with respect to the physical obstruction caused the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 2nd respondent since no steps to afford protection is granted this writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 5 it is contended that the establishment of the petitioner is situated in an area where the functional operation of the scheme formulated under the Headload Workers Act has been implemented. Therefore it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to do the loading and unloading work by engaging unregistered workers. It is also contended that he respondents 3 to 5 unions are registered headload workers having registration under the scheme implemented and they are entitled to do the work as a mater of right. In a statement submitted by the additional 6th respondent it is mentioned that the arguments of the petitioner is constituted in a scheme covered area coming within the pool No.15 consistent of 6 laber workers during loading and unloading in the area in question. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the 6thr espondent contended that being a scheme implemented area the petitioner is not entitled to do the loading and unloading works with the unregistered workers. In view of the above said WP(C) .21465/2011 5 contentions we directed the learned Government pleader to ascertain regarding the status of the application submitted by the so called attached workers of the petitioner for registration under Rule 26A. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the 7th respondent submitted the application submitted by the workers of the petitioner stands rejected since the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that they are the permanent workers of the establishment in question However we take note of the fact that against the denial of registration the workers have got a remedy under Rule 26(c) before the appellate authority District Labour officer. We also notice that yet another controversy as to whether the establishment is constituted in an area door No. or under door No.38 contention of the petitioner is that the establishment is situated within the area assigned to room No.38 and not room No.15. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that the view in view of the instructions received from the Assistant labour Officer. However learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent confirm that the establishment is situated in an area covered by No.15 . The dispute as stated above in this writ WP(C) .21465/2011 6 petition since it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate instructions from the 6th respondent if he intends to engage workekrs in the form formulated under the scheme. Considering the rival statement and the issue raised we are of the opinion that the police protection could not be granted for doing the loading and unloading work by engaging unregistered workers. Since it is established wherein functional has been supported. However, it will be left open to the petitioner to engage such workers if .. such registration. However we notice there is an allegation of threat filed because of the petitioner and his employees. The 2nd respondent will take appropriate steps to afford such threat if any cause to the life of the petitioner and his workers if any reliable intimation is received regarding any such apprehended dthreat. We dispose of the writ petition reserving liberty to the parties to seek appropriate relief from the competent labour authority on the dispute entitlement for works. 21268/11 Petitioners husband and wife have approached this court claiming protection for their lives and against the respondents 4 WP(C) .21465/2011 7 to 8 who are their close relatives. It is alleged that on previous occasion also the petitioners were obliged to approach this court seeking police protection against some reliefs. It is those reliefs against who police protection there who are executing the present party respondents who are acting against the petitioners . Learned Government Pleader submittied that crime No.536/11 and 537/11 have been registered by the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector as the case and brother of some of the party respo9ndents and against the petitioners and the 1st petitioner and the Government Pleader submitted that whenever complaints are received from the petitiones such complaints will be gone into the immediately and necessary enquiries will be conducted and on the basis of the information in the enquiry appropriate action will be taken any danger to the life of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the party respondents usbmits that his claient do not insist because any threat of danger to the parties. We record the submission. We dispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to take protection again as and when complaints are received from the petitioners or from the side of the party respondents in threat or danger to the as regards the WP(C) .21465/2011 8 civil dispute between the parties civil disputes will be got parties through process of the 19322/11 Peptitioner has approached this court seeking protection for his life and for his properties raising various allegations. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed bdy the 3rd respondent denying all the allegations. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the police submitted that issuing direction for police cannot be justified. According to the learned Government Pleader property in question was delivered over to the 3rd respondent. In execution of a decree to which both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were parties. But after the delivery the petitioner trespassed into that property and is presently residing in that property. Petitioner has application for settling in which the property was delivered. Petitioner has filed fresh suit also. Having considered dthe rival submissions addressed at the bar as well as the pleadings raised by the parties we are of the view that no case is made out for issuance of police protection sought for the submission of the Government Pleader at the there is no threat the life of the WP(C) .21465/2011 9 petitioner and the petitioner's family. Government Pleader in case any complaint is received in future of any threat to the life of the petitioner or any member of the family such complaint duly enquirued into appropriate action will be taken we reford the above submission. 20363/11 It is submitted that the issue between the parties is settled we record the above submission and dispose of the writ petition accordingly. 21504 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner complainting that the 1st respondent police officer is harassing the petitioner by demanding the civil dispute. Government Pleder subsmitted that on receiving ocmplaint assistance of the parties was insisted upon since it is a civil dispute parpties were advised to recours the remedy through the process of civil court. We accept the submissions and decline jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. WP(C) .21465/2011 10