IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 855 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JETHU SINGH BHATI, DIRECTOR, DADHA PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 016. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.JACOB CHACKO SMT.JANCY ALEX RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER (LAW & ORDER), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHAIRPERSON , ERNAKULAM LOCAL COMMITTEE, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KUMUCHERY BUILDING, T.D. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE CONVENER, POOL NO. 26 (UNDER HEADLOAD WORKERS ACT), MONASTERY ROAD, NEAR ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION. 6. SASI, WORKER, POOL NO. 26 (UNDER HEADLOAD WORKERS ACT), MONASTERY ROAD, NEAR ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION. 7. SETHUMADHAVAN, WORKER, POOL NO. 26 (UNDER HEADLOAD WORKERS ACT), MONASTERY ROAD, NEAR ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA. R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.KOSHY GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.855 OF 2009: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.855 of 2009-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to give sufficient police protection for the petitioner to carry out their business without interference from respondents 6 and 7 and their men. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to respondents 4 and 5 to interfere in the matter to regulate pool No.26 under their control and not to interfere in the running of medicine distribution centre at Monastery Road.” 2. There is no dispute that the scheme is applicable and there is also no dispute that unless the petitioner has registered workers petitioner must necessarily employ headload workers having registration as per law. In such circumstances, we close the writ petition without prejudice to the right of petitioner in law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS