IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14113 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. K.V.ABDUL RAZAK FATHIMA MANZIL, P.O. IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. P. MUHAMMED HAJI, BALIYIL HOUSE P.O.ALANKODE, PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT 3. P.HAMZA, PONARATHIL, P.O.KUNDUTHODU KUTTIYADI, CALICUT DISTRICT. 4. P.K.RASHEED, KUTTIKATTUPARAMBU P.O.NALLAM, CALICUT-27 5. K.M.AYOOB, CHIKKRIKKAD PARAMBA, P.O. ARAKINAR, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. S.I. OF POLICE CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION V.K. COMPLEX,FORT ROAD, KANNUR-1 4. RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION V.K. COMPLEX,FORT ROAD, KANNUR-1 5. P.V.NARAYANAN, S/O. ANDI, THEJUS. NALLANDIPARAMBA, CHIRAKKAL P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT W.P.(C).14113/2008-E 6. M.S. ASHOK KUMAR, WHITE ROASE, TALAP, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT 7. P.V.DEVARAJAN, WHITE ROSE, TALAP, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL ADV. SRI.N.HARIHARAN - R.5 SRI.KISHOR B. - R6 & R7 SRI.R.SUDHIR, SC, P.F. - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).14113/2008-E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/04/08 DIRECTING THE FIRST PETITIONER TO TAKE AWAY THE MACHINERIES MENTIONED IN THE SALE CERTIFICATE WITHIN 3 DAYS EXT.P1(a):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/04/08 DIRECTING THE SECOND PETITIONER TO TAKE AWAY THE MACHINERIES MENTIONED IN THE SALE CERTIFICATE WITHIN 3 DAYS. EXT.P1(b):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/04/08 DIRECTING THE THIRD PETITIONER TO TAKE AWAY THE MACHINERIES MENTIONED IN THE SALE CERTIFICATE WITHIN 3 DAYS. EXT.P1(c):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/04/08 DIRECTING THE FOURTH PETITIONER TO TAKE AWAY THE MACHINERIES MENTIONED IN THE SALE CERTIFICATE WITHIN 3 DAYS. EXT.P1(d): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/04/08 DIRECTING THE FIFTH PETITIONER TO TAKE AWAY THE MACHINERIES MENTIONED IN THE SALE CERTIFICATE WITHIN 3 DAYS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/04/08 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2(a):COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/04/08 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P2(b):COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/04/08 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. EXT.P2(c):COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/04/08 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER. EXT.P2(d):COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/04/08 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE FIFTH PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30/04/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PFAA IN ATA 2008 DATED 17/04/2008 NO:266(7)2008. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF FAX MESSAGE DATED 21/04/2008. EXT.R5(c): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/04/2008. EXT.R5(d): COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT DATED 30/04/2008. EXT.R5(e): COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 30/04/2008. EXT.R5(f): COPY OF CONDITIONS FOR SALE ISSUED BY THE PF AUTHORITY EXT.R5(g): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER DATED 28/04/2008. Rs/ // TRUE COPY // K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14113 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are auction purchasers of certain machineries belonging to a firm called M/s Hindusthan Engineering Products, Kannur. The 5th respondent was its proprietor. Auction was conducted to recover the arrears and P.F. dues by the 4th respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent. When the petitioners tried to remove the machineries, the 5th respondent with the support of the respondents 6 and 7 obstructed the same. So, they moved the police for extending necessary protection to them. A copy of the representation made before the police is produced as Exhibit P3. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following relief: “A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police W.P.(C)No.14113/08 -2- protection to the petitioners, their labourers and vehicles for removal of the auctioned machinery and other movable items covered by Ext.P2 series of sale certificates against obstruction by respondents 5 to 7 and their men so as to facilitate removal of the said articles from the premises of the M/s Hindustan Engineering Products, Tankekunnu, Kannur District forthwith.” 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the claim of the petitioners. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the sale was held illegally and in violation of the order of the statutory appellate authority. So, he has already filed W.P.(C)No.14308/08 before this Court, seeking reliefs against the sale of the machineries. 3. As long as the sale proceedings in favour of the petitioners are not stayed or set aside, they should be conceded right to remove the auctioned articles for which they have already made the payments. So, if the petitioners move the 2nd respondent after one month from today, the said respondent shall render necessary assistance to the petitioners to remove the auctioned machineries covered by Exhibits P2, P2(a), P2(b), P2(c) and P2(d). W.P.(C)No.14113/08 -3- 4. The 5th respondent may move the statutory authorities or this Court against the auction of his machineries. The said respondent will be free to pursue the remedies available to him under law. If he obtains any order in his favour, the direction to grant police protection will be subject to that order. For example, if Exhibit P2 series are stayed by the competent authority or this Court, the direction to grant police protection will stand automatically vacated. To enable the 5th respondent to try to get orders in his favour, the grant of police protection is postponed by one month from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn