IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1157 of 2011(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. SASI, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 62, VAZHATHARA HOUSE, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682504. 2. SAMOD, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 32 NADUVILAMURI HOUSE, VALLARPADOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682504. BY ADVS. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.VIBIN VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM-682531. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL, ERNAKULAM-682531. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682504. 4. SHINE A.H., S/O.A.K.HARIHARAN, AGED 33, ARAKKAPPARAMBU HOUSE, PANANBUKADU, VALLARPADOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682504. 5. PRAVEEN A.H., S/O.A.K.HARIHARAN, AGED 33, ARAKKAPPARAMBU HOUSE, PANANBUKADU, VALLARPADOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682504. 6. A.K.HARIHARAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,AGED ABOUT 60, ARAKKAPPARAMBU HOUSE, PANANBUKADU, VALLARPADOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682504. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.KARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 1157/2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ROUTE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY TO THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 6. P2: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM THE HOSPITAL TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/12/2010 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/12/2010 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4(a):COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.1157 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioners who allegedly illegally object to and obstruct the running of a stage carriage service by the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the bus from its former owner. Respondents 4 to 6 are other operators operating two stage carriage services on the same route. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 to 6 had earlier approached the vendors of the petitioners for the sale of the bus to them. The vendors of the petitioners preferred the petitioners and accordingly, sale was effected to the petitioners. Respondents 4 to 6, rival bus operators, did not relish the entry of the petitioners into the field and on account of this, they are WPC No.1157/2011 2 indulging in high handed, wanton, culpable and violent conduct against the petitioners. It is prayed that protection may be afforded to petitioners 1 and 2 to operate their services. 3. Respondents 4 to 6 have entered appearance through counsel. They, through their counsel, assert categorically that they have no intention of purchasing the bus operated by the petitioners and that they shall not indulge in any violent or contumacious conduct against the operation of the vehicle by the petitioners. In fact, counsel for respondents 4 to 6 contends that the boot is on the other leg and it is respondents 4 to 6 who are being unnecessarily vexed, harassed and assaulted by the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, after taking instructions, submits that it is true that the petitioners as well as respondents 4 to 6 are rival operators, operating stage carriages along the same route. In the perception of respondents 1 to 3, though there are disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 4 to 6 on the other, there is no WPC No.1157/2011 3 threat or risk of danger in the life and person of either. If there be any such threat or risk to the life or person of either, respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary action to abate such violence. No separate or specific directions are necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of and record the submission/undertaking of the counsel on behalf of respondents 4 to 6. We take note of and record the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in the matter. This writ petition is in these circumstances allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/