IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1177 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.T.SEBASTIAN, NAMATTATHIL HOUSE, POTTANKAD P.O., CHITHIRAPURAM, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNNAR, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 612. 2. S.I.OF POLICE MUNNAR, MUNNAR POLICE STATION, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 612. 3. C.NELSON, S/O.CHELLADURAI, HOUSE NO.354 OF WARD IX, NEW COLONY, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUNNAR P.O., PIN-685 612. 4. SUBRAHMANIYAN, S/O.VELU, NEW COLONY, MUNNAR P.O,PIN- 685 612 5. HYER UNNIZA, PANCHAYATHU MEMBER WARD X, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATHU, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATHU OFFICE, MUNNAR P.O.-685 612. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.1177/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LETTER OF INDENT ISSUED BY ICSA TO PETITIONER DATED 15/10/2009. P2 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY ICSA CONTAINING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT DATED 15/10/2009. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO S.I.OF POLICE, MUNNAR DATED 30/10/2010. P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY S.I.OF POLICE DATED 30/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011-V ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner to enable him to remove one transformer which, the petitioner, an electrical contractor, was entrusted by the ICSA (INDIA) Ltd., Hyderabad. The petitioner is a contractor who had undertaken the work of installing a transformer. In connection with that, two transformers were entrusted to the petitioner. The petitioner had taken them to the site. One of the transformers has been installed. The other is to be taken away from the locality and returned by the petitioner to M/s. ICSA (INDIA) Ltd. The petitioner has finished his work. One of the W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011 -: 2 :- transformers has been installed. The other had to be removed. While so, some local people of which respondents 3 to 5 are named are attempting to forcibly obstruct the petitioner from removing the transformer. Complaint made to the police did not evoke any response and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has chosen to come to this Court with this writ petition. 2. This petition was admitted. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 5 have been served; but there is no appearance for them. Respondent No.4 has not been served. Notice issued to him is returned with an endorsement that no such addressee is residing in that address. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, submits that the 4th respondent can now be deleted from the array of parties. Three persons have been named as respondents 3 to 5 to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner now. Inasmuch as 4th respondent's notice is returned unserved, it is not necessary to wait for issue of notice to the 4th respondent, it is submitted. The 4th respondent is thus deleted from the array of parties. 3. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2, submits that on enquiry W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011 -: 3 :- the police is satisfied about the legitimacy of the claim of the petitioner. The transformer has been entrusted to the petitioner as sub-contractor. The electrical contractor i.e., ICSA (INDIA) Ltd., Hyderabad, wants the petitioner to return the transformer. The learned Government Pleader submits that respondents 1 and 2 have instructed the learned Government Pleader that the local people have no semblance of any right to object to the removal of the transformer from the site where it was brought. It is not necessary for drawing electrical connection. In these circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are willing to provide the requisite police protection for the petitioner, it is submitted. 4. We do entertain an apprehension as to whether three convenient persons have been arrayed as respondents by the petitioner as respondents 3 and 5 have not chosen to enter appearance and resist the prayer. It is, in these circumstances, that we heavily relied on the submission of the learned Government Pleader about the stand of respondents 1 and 2. They are supposed to be the responsible police officials who can enlighten the court about the real nature of the dispute. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to remove the transformer which was brought by W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011 -: 4 :- him to the scene and which has not been used in connection with the work. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge