IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 29503 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LORRY TRANSPORT AGENCIES UNION (A.I.T.U.C.), SOUTH BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.P.ABDUL RAZAK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT LORRY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A.M.COMPLEX, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.K.HAMZA. 2. LORRY TRANSPORT AGENCIES UNION (CITU), REGISTRATION NO.12/8/1988, GAYATHRI BUILDINGS, CHEROOTTY, CALICUT, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P.ALIKOYA. 3. P.M.MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT LORRY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A.M.COMPLEX, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 4. V.VENUGOPAL, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, LORRY TRANSPORT AGENCIES UNION (C.I.T.U.), REGISTRATION NO.12/8/1988, GAYATHRI BUILDINGS, CHEROOTTY, CALICUT. 5. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, KERALA STATE, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. W.P.(C) No.29503/2007 6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 7. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CALICUT RURAL), BADAGARA. 8. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD. 9. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 10. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 11. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 12. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 13. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGARAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 14. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGARAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 15. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. 16. KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, VYAPARA BHAVAN, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.P.SREEDHARAN. ADDL.R17: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. (IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.19.2.2008) BY ADV. SRI.AYPE JOSEPH FOR R.1TOR3 SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R2 SRI.P.S.PRADEEP FOR R2 SRI.P.SANJAY FOR R4 SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON FOR R4 SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI FOR R4 SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R16 SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN FOR ADDL.R17 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R13 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) Nos. 28692, 32006/2007 & 19352/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.29503/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF TURN SYSTEM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN 'mATHRUBHOOMI' DAILY DATED 15.09.2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN 'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.21.09.2007 MADE BEFORE 15TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.07.2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.25.09.2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.13846/2005 RESPONDEN'S EXTS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.6.10.2007 SUBMITTED BY 7 PERSONS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WRIT PETITION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.4.10.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 7 PERSONS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 2 EXCEPT THE LAST PERSON ABDUL SAMAD T.K., TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE MINUTES SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PERSONS EXCEPT ABDUL SAMAD T.K., IN THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNION. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T.KUNHALI EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY R.SANTHOSHKUMAR. EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T. BEERAN KOYA. EXT.R2(g): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY A.MANZOOR. W.P.(C) No.29503/2007 EXT.R2(h): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T.ABDUL KALAM EXT.R2(i): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T.ABDUL LATHEEF EXT.R2(j): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T. UNUS ALI. EXT.R2(k): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE MOTOR AND ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT UNIT, LORRY SECTION DT.15.10.2007. EXT.R2(l): COPY OF THE ORDER DT.10.9.2007 IN M.C.NO,206/2007 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.R2(m): COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DT.21.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE ORGANISATIONS SHOWING REG.NO.236/86. EXT.R2(n): LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P1 AGREEMENT. EXT.R2(o): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FROM THE CONVENER UNDER EXT.P1 TO THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (NORTH) WITH COPY TO THE 15TH RESPONDENT AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE. EXT.R2(p): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 19.9.2007 WITH COPY TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.R16(a): COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, DT.21.9.2007. EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE FIR93/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE FIR124/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE FIR127/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE EXT.R4(d): COPY OF THE FIR132/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE, //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.29503, 28692, 32006 OF 2007 & 19352 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.P.(C) No.29503 OF 2007 The petitioner is a union of Lorry Transport Agents. Their members function as lorry booking agents. They arrange lorries for the parties, who are desirous of getting lorries for transporting their goods. The respondents 1 to 4 have introduced a turn system for the booking of lorries under Ext.P1 agreement. The petitioner submits, its members are not the parties to Ext.P1. The businessmen who engage the lorries for transporting of their goods are also not parties to Ext.P1. 2. After the introduction of turn system, as provided in Ext.P1, a businessman or an individual, who wants to engage a lorry has to approach the convenor of the turn and he will provide the lorry required for transporting the goods. In other words, a person who wants to engage a lorry for his business cannot opt the lorry or the owner of his preference. If, he goes W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 2 for engaging the lorries of his choice, operation of such lorries are obstructed by the muscle men under the respondents 1 to 4, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner points out the incidents in which the lorries booked by its members were obstructed by members of respondents 2 and 4. Ext.P4 is a representation filed by them before the police pointing out such incidents on 21.9.2007. They have also produced Ext.P5 representation filed by the Malabar Chamber of Commerce pointing out the inconveniences caused by the turn system to their members. 4. The petitioner submits that, to get over the shackles under Ext.P1, in engaging lorries, a settlement has been signed between the petitioner Union with the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi and also some of the lorry owners. A copy of it is produced as Ext.P6. The petitioners relied on Ext.P7 judgment rendered in a case, the facts of which are similar to the case on hand. The petitioner points out that the said decision is reported in Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan [2005(3) KLT 531]. The petitioner, W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 3 in the light of the above facts pleaded, prayed for a direction to the respondents 6 to 15 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner association and its members against the illegal actions of the respondents 1 to 4 and their supporters. 5. The respondents 1 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. The respondents 2 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits. On behalf of the official respondents, the 13th respondent has filed a statement pointing out that, as a result of implementation of the turn system and the counter system attempted by the petitioner under Ext.P5, certain law and order problems have arisen. Six cases and six counter cases have been registered against the parties. 6. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the party respondents pointed out that the writ petition filed by an unregistered association is not maintainable. They pointed out that it may be not practically possible for the police to grant protection as prayed for by the petitioners. They also pointed out that they have no involvement W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 4 in the alleged violence raised against the members of the petitioner association. In fact, they are the victims of attack by the members and supporters of the petitioner. 7. We are not impressed by the technical contentions raised by the party respondents, especially, when this writ petition is heard along with a batch of writ petitions, in many of which, the affected persons are the writ petitioners. 8. The point raised by the petitioner is covered in its favour by the decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan [2005(3)KLT 531]. For the convenience of lorry owners, their workers and the customers of the lorries, some sort of turn system may be beneficial. The parties can come to a consensus and may implement a turn system. But, the same cannot be enforced by use of force against who are not willing to co- operate with the same. Every citizen should be conceded freedom to operate his vehicle according to his wishes and a customer should be conceded freedom to engage lorry of his own choice. No one can thrust any conditions on them. W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 5 Therefore, we are inclined to give the same directions issued by this Court in the above reported decision. If the members of the petitioner association engages a vehicle without following the turn system introduced as per Ext.P1, and, if that vehicle is obstructed by anyone, the affected person concerned may inform the concerned Station House Officer. In that event, the Station House Officer shall remove the obstruction. The respondents 5 to 12 and 15 shall issue necessary instructions to their subordinates to take prompt action, if any complaint is received in this regard. W.P.(C) Nos.28692, 32006 OF 2007 & 19352 OF 2008 These writ petitions are filed by the lorry owners/ lorry transport agents. The point raised in these writ petitions are covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29503/2007 and also the reported decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan [2005(3)KLT 531]. Accordingly, if any vehicle, which is engaged by the petitioners is obstructed, they may inform the Station House Officer concerned. In that event, the said Officer shall W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 6 remove the obstruction. The superior police officers shall ensure that prompt action is taken by their subordinates, in this regard. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps