IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6664 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOSE GEORGE, PERUMAMPANICKAL, KUDAKKACHIRA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.PIN-686 001 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 686 575. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 686 575. 4. BOSS UMMAN, PRESIDENT C.I.T.U. THOZHILALI UNION, ARUNAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, KAPPILUMAVINTHOTTAM, MEENACHIL.P.O., PALA. 686 589. 5. SASI.N.A., SECRETARY, K.T.U.C.(M), NEERUMKAL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM, BHARANANGANAM. 686 588. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.6664/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CRIME NO.54/11 OF PALAI POLICE STATION OF 16/01/2011. P2 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/01/2011. P3 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/01/2011. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6664 of 2011-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner for the peaceful removal of cut trees in the wake of illegal obstructions by respondents 4 and 5. 2. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist. Trees have been cut in his property. They have to be removed. Respondents 4 and 5 - trade union of workmen, are illegally raising obstruction. They have no right to raise any obstruction. Area is not covered by the scheme. Members of the union of respondents 4 and 5 do not have requisite registration as loading and unloading workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that police W.P.(C) No. 6664 of 2011 -: 2 :- protection may be afforded to the petitioner. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submits that there was some labour dispute. Allegation of illegal obstruction was there. Police had intervened. In the perception of the police officials/respondents 1 to 3, there is no threat to law and order now. No specific directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are necessary now. 4. Respondents 4 and 5 have appeared through counsel. It is submitted that respondents 4 and 5 or members of the said trade unions have not raised any illegal obstruction. The area is not a scheme covered area, it is accepted. Members of respondents 4 and 5 are not persons registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, it is conceded. However, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that members of respondents 4 and 5 are workmen of the locality and they have claimed right to work for the petitioner. The petitioner has not accepted the same. Respondents 4 and 5 and their members are not indulging in any illegal activities. They are only peacefully protesting and staging demonstration claiming right to work W.P.(C) No. 6664 of 2011 -: 3 :- under the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no necessity to issue any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the situation is not as innocent and innocuous as respondents 4 and 5 attempt to make it out to be. Counsel relies on Ext.P1 - FIR to contend that there has actually been acts of violence against the petitioner. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that directions under Art.226 of the Constitution do deserve to be issued in favour of the petitioner. 7. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford protection to the petitioner against any illegal obstruction that may be raised by respondents 4 and 5 and their members against removal of cut trees from the property of the petitioner. It is made clear that these directions will not in any way fetter the rights of respondents 4 and 5 to hold peaceful demonstration in support of W.P.(C) No. 6664 of 2011 -: 4 :- their cause; but it will have to be ensured by the police that such demonstration is peaceful and do not in any way amount to obstruction of removal of cut trees from the property of the petitioner. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge