IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12589 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JALALUDHEEN, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL, HASHIM MANZIL, MUKKADA, CHANAPPARA P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 536. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 536. 5. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE, NILAMEL, KOLLAM - 691 535. 6. GOPAKUMAR, VIJAYA SADANAM, MULAMKATTUKUZHI, AYIRAKUZHI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 556. W.P.(C). NO.12589/2011-W: 7. THULASIDHARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MULAMKATTUKUZHI, AYIRAKUZHI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 556. 8. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, RAVI BHAVAN, MULAMKATTUKUZHI, AYIRAKUZHI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 556. 9. J.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.J.BHAVAN, KINATTUMUKKU, AYIRAKUZHI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 556. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12589/2011-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04/05/2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND GOPINATHA PILLAI. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.12589 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 2 to 4 - all police officials under the first respondent State to afford police protection to the petitioner against contumacious, culpable and illegal obstruction by respondents 6 to 9. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the owner of a parcel of land. Under the agreement, the petitioner has been given permission to slaughter tapping the rubber trees and cut and remove them. The work has to be completed by the Ist of July 2011. The slaughter tapping is over. The trees have been cut and the petitioner wants to remove them. The area is not a scheme covered area. The petitioner has the option under law to engage any one that he pleases. However, respondents 6 to 9 have some internecine disputes among them and they are not WPC No.12589 of 2011 2 permitting the petitioner to remove the cut rubber trees. The petitioner is willing to engage respondents 6 to 9 or any one among them who is willing to do the work. But they are not settling the disputes among themselves nor are they permitting the petitioner to get the work done by any one of them or by other workmen of the petitioner's choice. The petitioner will now engage other workmen and not get involved in the disputes between respondents 6 to 9. The petitioner may be afforded police protection to get such work done. This in short is the prayer of the petitioner. 3. Respondents 6 to 9 though served have not chosen to enter appearance. Respondent No.5 is the Assistant Labour Officer before whom the petitioner wanted the matter to be settled. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that the area is admittedly not a scheme covered area. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the police had made attempts to settle the disputes between respondents 6 to 9. Success has not been achieved. In these circumstances, the police is WPC No.12589 of 2011 3 willing to afford protection to the petitioner to get the work done by persons engaged by him. Appropriate directions may be issued, it is prayed. 5. We take note of the admitted fact that the area is not a scheme covered area. We take note of the circumstance that respondents 6 to 9 have not, though served, chosen to enter appearance before this Court. We are in these circumstances satisfied that directions can be issued in favour of the petitioner as prayed for. 6. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to afford adequate and sufficient protection for the petitioner to get the work of removal of cut rubber trees in the property done by persons of his choice. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE