IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6693 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.N.RAMASWAMI, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 46, VISHNU KRIPA, KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK & DISTRICT,KOZHIKODE-29,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.P.R.COMBINES, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19/1879,P.V.SWAMY ROAD, CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-2. 2. K.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 34, PARTNER, M/S.P.R. COMBINES FIRM HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19/1879, P.V.SWAMY ROAD, CHALAPURAM KOZHIKODE-2. BY ADVS. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SRI.SABU GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 004. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KSABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 004. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673 001. W.P.(C). NO.6693/2011-J: 6. THE INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT SECRETARY 7. THE CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION, DISTRICT COMMITTEE-LOCAL COMMITTEE OFFICE, 431/751, ANEE HALL ROAD, KOZHIKODE-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT SECRETARY. *ADDL. 8TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: 8. THE KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 11/03/2011. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, ADDL. R8 BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.6693/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONERS' FIRM DTD. 10/05/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 27/02/2011 LODGED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.6693 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioners claim police protection. According to the petitioners, they are running distribution agency in Britania biscuits. It is their grievance that respondents 6 and 7 are obstructing the removal of small packets of biscuits by the driver of the autorickshaw employed by the petitioner for delivery of biscuits. 2. Respondents are served. But there is no appearance of respondents 6 and 7, once against whom the order is sought. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board was arrayed as the 8th respondent at the direction of this Court. On 5th April 2011, the following interim order was issued by this Court. “There is no appearance of respondents 6 and 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for interim directions. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the weight of each packet to be removed shall not exceed 5 kilograms at any rate. He further submits that the loading and unloading of these packets shall be done by the autorickshaw driver of the vehicle in which the packets are transported. The name of such driver shall be furnished to respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 3 to 5 shall afford police protection till the next date of posting to such autorickshaw driver of the petitioner for movement of packets of weight less than 5 kilograms”. WPC No.6693 of 2011 2 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interim direction has been working well and the same can be made absolute and proceedings closed. As stated earlier, respondents 6 and 7 against whom the order is sought, have not chosen to enter appearance. The learned standing counsel for the 8th respondent also submits that the interim order can be made absolute and this proceedings closed. The larger issues that arise for consideration can be relegated for consideration in an appropriate case where there is contest, submits the learned standing counsel. 4. We accept the request. In these circumstances, without intending to lay down any precedent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that this petition can be allowed. 5. This writ petition is allowed. The interim order dated 5.4.2011 extracted above is made absolute. SD/- R.BASANT JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.T O JUDGE