IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20409 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RIJO JACOB, THADAVANAL HOUSE, NARAKAPUZHA, KOKKAAYAAR, PEERUMEDU. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASST.LABOUR OFFICER, PEERUMEDU. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMEDU. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMEDU. 5. CITU UNION, PASUPPARA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.J,VAVACHAN, MEPPURATH HOUSE, MATHAIPPARA P.O., MATHAIPPARA. 6. CITU UNION, UPPUTHARA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.K.DEVARAJAN, KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA P.O., UPPUTHARA. 7. INTUC UNION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.M.VARKEY, PODIPARAYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA P.O., UPPUTHARA. 8. BMS UNION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJENDRAN, COOL BAR OWNER, 35TH MILE, MUNDAKKAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 20409/2009. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 4.6.2009. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.7.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16.7.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPYOF REPRESENTATION DATED 17.7.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17.7.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20409 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Inspite of notice issued to the party respondents, they have not entered appearance. 2. Petitioner is doing timber business. Malayalam Plantation Ltd., invited tenders for cutting and removing shade trees and petitioner was the successful bidder. Admittedly this is a scheme covered area. The allegation is that party respondents, because of the inter rivalry dispute between them, are not permitting the work to be carried out. In the circumstances, there will be a direction that in case the petitioner does the work of loading and unloading with the registered workers under the Headload Workers Act or using any mechanical force, there cannot be any physical obstruction caused and if there is any such obstruction caused, police will interfere in the matter. WPC. 20409/2009. 2 The writ petition is disposed of as above P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.