IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13739 of 2011(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SALIAMMA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. JOSE, PONGANPARA HOUSE, PASUKADAVU P.O., MARUTHONGARA VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), VADAKARA – 673 101. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VADAKARA – 673 101. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIYADI – 673 508. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOTTINPALAM POLICE STATION, THOTTINPALAM – 673 511. 5. THALACHIRA VASU, PASUKADAVU P.O., MARUTHONKARA VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK – 679 513. 6. BINU, S/O. THALACHIRA VASU, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- - 679 513. 7. UNNI, S/O. THALACHIRA VASU, -DO- -DO- - 679 513. 8. MARUTHOLY KANNAN, BRANCH SECRETARY, C.P.I.(M) PASUKADAVU P.O., MARUTHONKARA VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK – 679 513. W.P.(C). NO.13739/2011-N: *ADDITIONAL R.9 IMPLEADED: 9. SHINIL JOSE, RESIDING AT MALABAR MANOR, KOTTOLI, P.O. KOZHIKODE -12. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.9 AS PER ORDER DT. 03/06/11 IN I.A. 8473/11. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS, R6 & R8 BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13739/2011-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1313/94 DTD. 18/06/94. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2607/95 DTD. 04/12/1995. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 30/04/1996. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 10/10/2000 ISSUED BY ARIYIL KUNJURAMAN. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 12/05/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R6.A: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE BY ADVOCATE K. PREMKUMAR TO THE R.5. DTD. 02/09/2010. EXT.R6.B: COPY OF THE O.S. 279/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM. EXT.R6.C: COPY OF THE O.S. 71/2011 FILED BY SON OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, VATAKARA. EXT.R6.D: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/05/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NADAPURAM IN CMP.1557/2011 IN MC.61/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.13739 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders resting with the order dated 8.6.2011. 2. In an attempt to enable the parties to get their disputes settled harmoniously, interim directions were issued on 8.6.2011 to enable the 5th respondent to pluck coconuts from the property with police protection. 3. The petitioner now complaints that in spite of the interim order of this Court, the 5th respondent was unwilling to work and he wanted the work to be done by respondents 6 and 7 and another person. Hence, the directions could not be complied with, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 on the contrary asserts that the fifth respondent was present and was willing to undertake the work. 5. In the light of that controversy, we turned to the learned Government Pleader to make his submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in accordance with the directions dated 8.6.2011, the police had gone to the property to WPC No.13739 of 2011 2 afford protection. The fifth respondent stated that he is unable to do the work and is hence unable to comply with the directions. Hence the interim directions could not be carried out, submits the learned Government Pleader. This submission is made on the basis of the instructions received from the fourth respondent. 6. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are satisfied that this petition can now be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued. 7. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner to get the work of plucking of coconuts in her property done by persons of her choice employed by her. c) This direction is without prejudice to the rights of respondents 5 to 7 to raise disputes to get the controversy regarding the right of employment of respondents 6 and 7 resolved in accordance with law. sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE WPC No.13739 of 2011 3 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.13739 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th June, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. Additional respondent No.9 is served. There is no representation for additional respondent No.9. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8. It is agreed that respondent No.5 shall pluck the coconuts from the property of WPC No.13739 of 2011 4 the petitioner within a period of one week from this date. It is agreed that the coconuts shall be cut on 13.6.2011 and if that be not possible on account of rain, on the next following day. Respondents 1 to 4 shall afford protection to the petitioner to get such work done by the fifth respondent. 2. Call on 17.6.2011 for report. 3. Hand over copy to the learned Government Pleader and both counsel. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/ WPC No.13739 of 2011 5 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.13739 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd June, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. In the light of the contentions raised on behalf of respondents 5 to 8, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to implead the son of the petitioner as an additional respondent. Take all necessary steps. Call on 3/6/2011. R.BASANT JUDGE WPC No.13739 of 2011 6 K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/