IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26844 of 2011(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- DR.K.G.SURESH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRIYA RUBBER ESTATES & PLANTATIONS (P) LTD ACHANCOIL ESTATE DIVISION,KALTHURUTHY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 691 309. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 305 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENMALA POLICE STATION, THENMALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 691 308 3. H.RAJEEVAN,PRESIDENT,THENMALA VALLEY ESTATE WORKERS UNION (AITUC),KALTHURUTHY P.O, PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 309 4. MAMBAZHATHARA SALIM, SECRETARY,EAST MEGHALA PLANTATION WORKERS UNION(INTUC),KALTHURUTHY P.O.,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 309 WP(C).No. 26844 of 2011(E) -2- 5. C.R.NAJEEB, PRESIDENT,EAST MEGHALA PLANTATION WORKERS UNION(INTUC),KALTHURUTHY P.O.,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 309. 6. TOMICHAN, GENERAL SECRETARY,EAST MEGHALAPLANTATION WORKERS UNION(INTUC),KALTHURUTHY P.O.,PUNALUR KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 309. 7. S.JAYAMOHAN, GENERAL SECRETARY,KOLLAM DISTRICT PLANTATION WORKERS UNION(CITU),KALTHURUTHY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 691 309. 8. R.PRADEEP, SECRETARY,KOLLAM DISTRICT PLANTATION WORKERS UNION (CITU),KALTHURUTHY P.O.,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 309. 9. THAMIZHSELVAN, S/O.SELVARAJAN,RESIDING AT NEAR PRIYA ESTATE, ACHANCOIL,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 689 696 10. AYYAPPAN, S/O.KARUPPASWAMY,RESIDING AT NEAR PRIYA ESTATE, ACHANCOIL,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 689 696 11. VIKRAMAN, S/O.ANANDAVALLY, RESIDING AT NEAR PRIYA ESTATE, ACHANCOIL,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 689 696 12. THIRUSELVAN, S/O.SELVARAJAN,RESIDING AT NEAR PRIYA ESTATE, ACHANCOIL,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 689 696 ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R9-12 SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR FOR R9-12 SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R3-8 SMT.P.S.PREETHA FOR R3-8 SRI.SAIJU S. FOR R3-8 SRI.T.PRASAD FOR R3-8 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26844 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27/07/11 PREPARED BY THE ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (I.R.) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RECEIVED COMPENSATION AND LEFT THE SERVICE OF THE ESTATE. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17/09/11. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/11. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 08/10/11. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R9(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25/01/10. EXT.R9(b):- TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.R9(c):-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.26844 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, Managing Director of Priya Rubber Estates & Plantations (P) Ltd. has approached this Court seeking direction for police protection against respondents 9 to 12 in the following terms:- “i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the unlawful obstruction caused by respondents 9 to 12 and their associates in the functioning of Priya Estate at Achankovil. ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the willing workers of the petitioner to carry on their day to day avocation in the estate as directed by the petitioner without any obstruction or hindrance from respondents 9 to 12 or their associates. iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to see that the petitioner is able to function the estate using his willing workers without any obstruction or hindrance from anybody including respondents 9 W. P. C. No.26844 of 2011 -2- to 12 or their men.” 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Anoop V. Nair, respondents 9 to 12 are not employees of the estate. They are only children of former employees of the estate. They have no business to interfere with the activities of the estate. 3. Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 to 12 submitted that respondents 9 to 12 are not claiming any employment in the estate. He conceded that those respondents are not presently workers of the estate. He submitted that they do not intend to interfere with the normal work of the estate. But Sri.Unnikrishnan submitted that those respondents are in possession of about 50 acres of land which is claimed by the petitioner to be part of the estate. The intention of the petitioner in seeking police protection is to evict respondents 9 to 12 and other persons in possession of the above extent other than due process of law. This may not be W. P. C. No.26844 of 2011 -3- permitted. 4. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker the learned Government Pleader submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 9 to 12 is likely to result in law and order situation. Crime No.830/11 of Thenmala Police Station has been registered by the Thenmala Police. The crime is under investigation. In the above said crime respondent Nos.9 and 12 are accused. 5. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar we dispose of the Writ Petition recording the submissions addressed at the Bar by Sri.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for respondents 9 to 12 and directing the 2nd respondent to take prompt action if it is reported to him that respondents 9 to 12 are creating trouble in the matter of day to day work of Priya Estate. It shall be the obligation of the 2nd respondent to ensure that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 9 to 12 do not give rise to law and order situation. We however, make it clear that this W. P. C. No.26844 of 2011 -4- judgment is not to be interpreted as one enabling the police to evict respondents 9 to 12 from any portion of the estate if as a matter of fact they are in possession. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-