IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 37100 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.AMPADIYIL GRANITES, VALLICODE, KOTTAYAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689656, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.SADANANDAN. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMHITTA - 689645. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645. 4. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645. 5. PRASAD MATHEW KUTTIKAT, PROPRIETOR, PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS, ATHRUNGAL P.O.-689693. 6. S.KRISHNAKUMAR, GENERAL CONVENOR, SAMARA SAMITHY, PANTHALAM P.O., PANTHALAM -689645. tss W.P.(C) NO.37100/2010 7. BIJU, KARINGALLIL, PERINGANAD P.O. ADOOR - 689645. 8. GEORGE SAIBU, STAR CONSTRUCTIONS, PARANTHAL P.O., ADOOR - 689645. 9. SASI, VYSHAKH CONSTRUCTIONS, PARAKKOD P.O., ADOOR – 689645. *ADDL. R10 IMPLEADED. 10. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMHITTA, *ADDL. R10 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 15.12.2010. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 TO R9 BY SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, SENIOR ADVOCATE R5 TO R9 BY ADV.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.37100/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8.12.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P1(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8.12.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P2(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23.11.2010 DTD. 4.12.2010 BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R6(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12.10.2010 IN WPC. 30460/2010. R6(b):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CONFERENCE DTD. 12.10.2010. R6(c):- COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 15.12.2010. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.37100 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, a metal crusher owner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 4 to afford protection for the petitioner against culpable, violent and wanton conduct on the part of respondents 5 to 9. 2. According to the petitioner, he is carrying on the activity of metal crushing. According to him, he is entitled to sell the finished product at prices which he thinks is feasible. There is no law stipulating the prices of the products. The petitioner has a grievance that respondents 5 to 9 are taking law into their hands and they are dictating that crusher products must be sold at the rates which according to them have been fixed at the intervention of the District Collector. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the WPC No.37100/2010 2 Constitution. 3. Respondents 5 to 9 have entered appearance. According to respondents 5 to 9, there was an outcry against arbitrary enhancement of crusher product prices by crusher operators. This had put into jeopardy, the orderly working of contractors who had undertaken the work with the Government. When problems assumed serious dimensions, the District Collector called a meeting and at the meeting held on 16.11.2010, it was decided in the presence of all concerned that crusher product prices shall not be enhanced until the elections to the local bodies were over and fresh decision was taken. This, according to the respondents, was not a voluntary decision by the District Collector. A learned Single Judge of this Court as per Ext.R6(a) judgment had directed the District Collector to take necessary steps in that direction. According to respondents 5 to 9, it is on the basis of the decision in Ext.R6(a) judgment that the District Collector convened the meeting dated 12.10.2010 and fixed the prices. The petitioner, suppressing the details about that proceedings of the District Collector, had come to this court asserting a right contrary to the decision of the WPC No.37100/2010 3 District Collector. The petitioner is not in these circumstances entitled to invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, contends respondents 5 to 9. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is not bound by the decision allegedly taken at the meeting of the District Collector on 12.10.2010. The learned counsel submits that now the question is merely academic. Even assuming that there was such a decision on 12.10.2010, that decision is no more in existence after 31.3.2011. The learned counsel relies on the meeting convened by the District Collector on 14.12.2010 subsequent to the earlier meeting dated 12.10.2010. In that meeting, the only decision was that the price of crusher products should not be enhanced till the 31st of March 2011. Since that date is over, no one has a right to insist that crusher products must be sold at the price allegedly fixed at the meeting dated 12.10.2010. Even otherwise the Collector has no right to fix the prices of crusher products. The petitioner is not bound by any such decision, contends counsel. In these circumstances, in any view of the matter, the petitioner has the right to WPC No.37100/2010 4 sell the crusher products at prices which he thinks are feasible. The party respondents have no right to insist that the products must be sold at any specified price. They have no authority to dictate prices to the petitioner, submits the learned counsel. 5. We have considered all relevant inputs. We do not think it necessary to go to the history as to the prices at which the products could have been sold prior to 31.3.2011. It is now evident that after 31/3/2011, there is no agreement regarding the price of crusher products. Neither statute nor agreement is relevant now as there is no law or agreement covering the period after 31.3.2010. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner asserts that he has a right to sell the crusher products at prices which according to him is feasible. 6. Respondents 5 to 9 assert that they have no intention to, in any manner, obstruct the attempt of the petitioner to sell products at prices which he thinks is workable for him. They may not purchase the products from the petitioner. But, it is submitted that in the industry, there has always been an agreement between the parties, represented by their respective organisations WPC No.37100/2010 5 under which prices were fixed. As the petitioner does not want to follow the prices fixed, party respondents 5 to 9 shall not be raising any physical obstruction to the sale of crusher products by the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 9. 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that subsequent to 31.3.2011, there is no binding agreement or decision of the Collector in the matter. On 23.3.2011, there was a meeting. But prices were not agreed upon. In these circumstances, nothing restrains the petitioner from selling the products at prices which he thinks is workable for him. At such meeting held on 23.3.2011, there were suggestions that the prices need not be enhanced, but at any rate, admittedly, there has been no decision binding on all the crusher operators. 8. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the right of the petitioner to sell products at prices that he thinks are workable cannot be obstructed. Respondents 5 to 9 assert that they do not intend to obstruct the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner apprehends that respondents 5 to 9 may actually obstruct when he starts selling the products at prices fixed by him. WPC No.37100/2010 6 There was an earlier interim order passed by this Court, but the same was later withdrawn. Because of the pendency of the proceedings now, there has been no obstruction or interference, but the petitioner apprehends that once the petition is disposed of, there is likelihood of illegal obstruction. 9. We are satisfied in these circumstances that this writ petition can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued. We accept the submission of the learned counsel on behalf of respondents 5 to 9 that respondents 5 to 9 shall not cause any physical obstruction to the activity of the petitioner. If there be any obstruction, we direct respondents 1 to 4 to afford necessary police protection to the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/