IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6892 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIBICHAN KURIAN,S/O.KURIAN,AGED 44 YEARS KALLUPURACKAL,CHANGANACHERRY.P.O,VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. OUSEPH JOSEPH,THUNDUPARAMBIL, CHEKKIDIKAD,THAKAZHI VILLAGE,KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SAJI VARGHESE,THUNDUPARAMBIL, CHEKKIDIKAD,THAKAZHI VILLAGE,KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. OUSEPH OUSEPH,THUNDUPARAMBIL, CHEKKIDIKAD,THAKAZHI VILLAGE,KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,EDATHUA POLICE STATION,MANNAR CIRCLE,ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6892 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 28.02.2011 FILED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDATHUA POLICE STATION. /true copy/ R.BASANT & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6892 of 2011-J ***************************** Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent No.4 against the alleged illegal obstruction by respondents 1 to 3 against the attempt of the petitioner to remove paddy belonging to him from the fields. 2. According to the petitioner, paddy has not been removed. It is lying on the field. Respondents 1 to 3 are raising illegal objections against its removal. They are taking law into their hands and are obstructing the removal of paddy which belongs to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 have no right to raise any such objections. It is, in these circumstances, that police protection was sought. 3. This petition was filed on 04.03.2011. It was admitted on the same day. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to this date. 4. Today when the case came up for hearing, respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance through Advocate W.P(C) No.6892 of 2011 2 C.G.Preetha. The learned counsel submits that respondents 1 to 3 have no intention to raise any illegal objections or to cause any obstruction against the attempt of the petitioner to remove paddy belonging to him. It is true that there is a dispute between respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand and the petitioner on the other. That dispute relates to wages allegedly payable to respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 to 3 shall resort to legal methods for enforcement of their claim for wages. They have no objection against the removal of paddy by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner prays that notwithstanding such submission made on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, specific direction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the police have looked into the matter and respondents 1 to 3 have assured that they shall not raise any obstruction against the removal of the paddy by the petitioner. 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued. 7. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; W.P(C) No.6892 of 2011 3 b) The 4th respondent is directed to afford police protection to the petitioner for the removal of paddy belonging to him; c) It is made clear that this judgment shall not in any way fetter the rights of respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings for claiming recovery of the amounts allegedly due to them from the petitioner. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) rtr/