IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4840 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.G.CLIPPY, S/O.K.C.GEORGE, MANAGING PARTNER, C.B.M.ENTERPRISES, MATTAPPARA, KALAGAPPARA P.O., AMBALAVAYAL TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPDT. OF POLICE, WAYANAD, KALPATTA, PIN-673 591. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, PIN-673 591. 3. THE C.I. OF POLICE, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD, PIN-673 591. 4. THE S.I. OF POLICE, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD, PIN-673591. *ADDL.R5 TO R7 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R5: THE KARINKAL THOZHILALI LOADING UNION(C.I.T.U), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 591, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. *ADDL.R6: THE KARINKAL THOZHILALI LOADING UNION(I.N.T.U.C), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN- 673 591, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. **ADDL.R7: THE KARINKAL THOZHILALI LOADING UNION(BMS) MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. ( DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY). *ADDL.R5 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/2/2011 **ADDL.R7 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 22/2/2011 R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4840 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection to the petitioner. Significantly, when the petition was filed, only respondents 1 to 4 - police officials and the District Collector, were arrayed as respondents. Later, on the basis of the observations made by this Court, respondents 5 to 7 have been arrayed as parties. Respondents 5 to 7 are trade unions. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner in this petition is that though the petitioner had come to this Court earlier and obtained Ext.P2 judgment for police protection in his favour, he was subsequently obliged to enter into Exts.P3 and P4 agreements with respondents 5 to 7. It would appear that the W.P.(C) No. 4840 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner complains that he was obliged and compelled to enter into Exts.P3 and P4 agreements notwithstanding the fact that Ext.P2 judgment had been rendered in his favour. He now appears to raise a grievance that notwithstanding Exts.P3 and P4 agreements also the work has not been carried on in his establishment. He runs an industrial establishment of manufacturing artificial sand. 3. The petitioner laments that notwithstanding Ext.P2 and subsequent to Exts.P3 and P4 agreements, he has not been able to carry on his activity. He prays for issue of fresh directions to respondents 1 to 4 under the changed circumstances. 4. Respondents 5 to 7 have not entered appearance. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 4, submits that the petitioner had with open eyes subsequent to Ext.P2 judgment entered into Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 agreements dated 2/10/10 and 8/10/10 respectively with his employees. The petitioner is now bound to honour and respect his commitments under Exts.P3 and P4 agreements. There has been change of circumstances after Ext.P2 judgment dated 15/9/10. The petitioner had never complained that the directions in Ext.P2 judgment were not being honoured by the police. The petitioner evidently in his business interest had W.P.(C) No. 4840 of 2011 -: 3 :- entered into Exts.P3 and P4 agreements with his employees. It does not lie in his mouth now to say that he is not bound by Exts.P3 and P4 agreements. In the perception of the police officials if the petitioner is willing to comply with Exts.P3 and P4 agreements, there is no possibility of any law and order situation. The petitioner may be directed to comply with Exts.P3 and P4. If there is any illegal obstruction/objection raised by respondents 5 to 7, appropriate steps shall be taken to afford police protection to the petitioner, submits the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner appears to raise grievances against Exts.P3 and P4 agreements. The petitioner was constrained and coerced to enter into those agreements, it is submitted. At the moment and with the available inputs, we find no reason to jump to such a conclusion. If the petitioner has such a grievance, it is upto him to take necessary steps in accordance with law to avoid Exts.P3 and P4 agreements. At the moment, we will proceed on the assumption that Exts.P3 and P4 agreements which have admittedly been entered into by the petitioner are valid. 6. It is true that Ext.P2 judgment was granted in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has entered into W.P.(C) No. 4840 of 2011 -: 4 :- Exts.P3 and P4 agreements with his workers. We find no merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner that the terms of Exts.P3 and P4 are oppressive and that the petitioner was constrained and coerced to enter into such agreements. Until those agreements are avoided in accordance with law, the petitioner must be held to be bound by Exts.P3 and P4 agreements entered into by him with open eyes after Ext.P2 judgment was passed in his favour. The collateral challenge of Exts.P3 and P4 agreements in this writ petition cannot be entertained. We are not persuaded to invoke our jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution to avoid or negate Exts.P3 and P4 agreements. 7. What remains is only the question whether observing the terms of Exts.P3 and P4, there is any obstruction to the running of the petitioner's establishment. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that if there be any illegal obstruction to run the establishment contrary to the terms of Exts.P3 and P4, necessary police protection shall be afforded to the petitioner against any such activities on the part of respondents 5 to 7. 8. We are satisfied that the said submission of the learned Government Pleader can be accepted. We direct respondents 1, 3 and 4 to afford police protection to the petitioner if there is any W.P.(C) No. 4840 of 2011 -: 5 :- illegal obstruction for the activities of the petitioner notwithstanding the compliance with Exts.P3 and P4 agreements. 9. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part to the above extent. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge