IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1988 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SANTHOSH BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT KADUKKASSERY HOUSE, MUNDERRY, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL SRI.A.V.JAMES RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHUKALLU. 3. SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.PELACHAN, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKETHODIKA HOUSE, MUNDERRY P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. 4. UNNI MOIN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT KAIPPAKASSERY HOUSE, MUNDERRY P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. 5. USMAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT KAIPPAKASSERY HOUSE, MUNDERRY P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. 6. SALHUDHIN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MANU, RESIDING AT CHAKKAMTHODIKA HOUSE, MUNDERRY P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN FOR R3-6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PERMISSION AGREEMENT DT. 15.12.2009. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PERMIT DT.6.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND RECEIPT DT.7.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.8.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE WORKERS OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COLLECTOR. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R5(a) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.13.1.2010 OF THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, NILAMBUR. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 1988 of 2010 W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the second respondent to render adequate and necessary police protection for his life and property and for peaceful conduct of the quarry work. 2. Respondents 3 to 6 are head load workers of that area. They belonged to different unions. The petitioner was conducting the quarry with 10 skilled workers. It is alleged that on 6.1.2010, respondents 3 to 6 and their men obstructed the quarry work stating that the petitioner shall not run the quarry without respondents 3 to 6. He filed Ext.P3 complaint before the second respondent and his workers filed Ext.P4 before the District Collector, W.P.(C).No. 1988 of 2010 2 Malappuram. It is submitted that the respondents are trying to stop the work and the head load workers have no authority or right to interfere with the work of the petitioner. The quarry work is the livelihood of the petitioner and his family. If work is not run, the petitioner, his family and the workers will be put to great poverty. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the petitioner has been running the quarry since June, 2009 and registered head load workers in the area, including the respondents, were engaged for loading work. Except registered workers no others were engaged by the petitioner until 6.1.2010 and the work is going on smoothly. It is stated that on 7.1.2010 the petitioner attempted to engage some persons from the nearby tribal colony for loading laterite stones denying employment to the registered head load workers. It is further stated that the respondents have not obstructed the quarry work and they will not obstruct the work. They submitted that the W.P.(C).No. 1988 of 2010 3 petitioner has unregistered workers in the quarry. The Assistant Labour Officer has convened a meeting on 23.1.2010 and it stands adjourned to 5.2.2010. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the work itself has come to a stand still. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents would submit that they never obstructed and will not obstruct the carrying out of the work in the quarry, but submits that as per law the petitioner can conduct the loading and unloading work only with the help of registered workers, as it is a scheme area. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that from the beginning of the quarry 5 to 10 members of Scheduled Tribe are working in the quarry. W.P.(C).No. 1988 of 2010 4 7. We take note of the submissions and we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows. The concerned Assistant Labour Officer will continue with the proceedings and take a decision in accordance with law. In the mean time, if respondents 3 to 6 or their men obstruct the petitioner from carrying out the works in the quarry, the second respondent will afford adequate protection for the running of the quarry by the petitioner. But it is made clear that this does not mean that the petitioner can carry out loading and unloading work except with registered head load workers, as per law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm