IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31747 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, KANJANI UNIT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, JOSE T.FRANCIS, S/O. T.J.PORINJU, THEKKATH HOUSE, P.O.MANALUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUJITH, S/O. SANKARAN, VALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJANY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. C.I.T.U. UNION, (HEAD LOAD WORKERS), KANJANY, REPRESENTED BY BAIJU, PLAKKAL HOUSE, KANJANY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 612. 2. B.M.S.UNION, (HEAD LOAD WORKERS), KANJANY, REPRESENTED BY RAJU,MODATHOLY HOUSE, KANJANY, THRISSUR – 680 612. 3. I.N.T.U.C. UNION (HEAD LOAD WORKERS), KANJANY, REPRESENTED BY SANTHOSH, VANNERY HOUSE, KANJANY, THRISSUR-680 612. 4. A.I.T.U.C. UNION (HEAD LOAD WORKERS), KANJANY, REPRESENTED BY ANTONY, ATTUYUNDAN HOUSE, KARAMUKKU, KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR-680 612. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISHMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31747/2010-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF P.1. WITH NAMES OF BUSINESS. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN P.1. AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 FOR THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER, 2009 TO NOVEMBER, 2011. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 06/10/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.5. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT ISSUED BY R.5. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.27443/2010 DTD. 20/09/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.27443/2010 DTD. 24/09/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 31747 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs. “i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 5th respondent to provide adequate police protection for the life and property of the members of the 1st petitioner, ii)issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 5th respondent to provide adequate police protection to the members of the 1st petitioner to carry out loading and unloading works in their business premises by themselves or with the help of their family members”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. The 1st petitioner is the association of petty traders and shop keepers at Kanjany and the 2nd petitioner is a member of the 1st petitioner and a dealer in rice. Only a small number of members of the 1st Wpc 31747/2010 2 petitioner require the service of head load workers on a regular basis. There is an agreement which is valid till November, 2011. But the workers of respondents 1 to 4 are violating the terms of the agreement and charging the shop keepers at exorbitant rates. They have decided to go for the service of the headload workers in case goods are heavy or requires specialised handling. When the petitioners tried to implement this decision, respondents 1 to 4 are forcefully obstructing them. Petitioners are not allowed to do loading and unloading works in their shops by themselves. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4, Sri N.Reghuraj and also learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not dispute that the scheme is applicable in the area. Their only contention is that members of the first petitioner association, wish to do loading and unloading work in their respective establishments by themselves and if they do that, they may not be obstructed. He also relies on the judgment of this court in WP(C)27443 of 2010. In such circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view and dispose of the writ petition as Wpc 31747/2010 3 follows. If any complaint is brought of obstructing the members of 1st petitioner when they are doing the loading and unloading work by themselves in their respective establishments, by respondents 1 to 4, first respondent shall afford protection to the members of the first petitioner association to carry out the loading and unloading work in their respective shops by themselves. sd/- K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE lgk The words “first respondent” occurring in line 4 of page number 3 of the judgment dated 20th December, 2010 in WP(C) 31747/10 are corrected and substituted as “fifth respondent” as per order dated 10.8.2011 in WP(C)31747/2010. sd/- Registrar (Judicial)