IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20596 of 2011(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- C.S.VINOD, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERANDIA RESORTS, KATTOOR.P.O., KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. PIN-688 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 538. 3. BYJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KAKKIRIYIL HOUSE, KATTOOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 688 546. 4. SUMESH ALIAS BABU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHAN, KOCHAMPARAMBIL, KATTOOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 688 546. 5. SABU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, KALAPPURACKAL, KATTOOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 688 546. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 20596 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 10-11-2008 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHIRAPPALLY. EXT.P2 : COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH. EXT.P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 11256/2007 DATED 4-4-2007. EXT.P4 : COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20-7-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 20596 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J. The petitioner is seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to give adequate police protection to himself and his workers for unloading the materials required for construction of a resort building in his property, from not being obstructed by respondents 3 to 5 and their men. According to the petitioner, the construction activities are being carried out in a property which is owned by him, on the strength of a valid Building Permit obtained from the local authority having jurisdiction. It is stated that the petitioner has got his own workers for doing the unloading of building materials. But the respondents 3 to 5 are creating obstruction raising illegal claims and gratification for permitting the unloading works to be done with the workers engaged by the petitioner. WP(C) .20596/2011 2 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the scheme formulated under the Kerala Headload Workers Act has not been enforced in the area in question and therefore respondents 3 to 5 or their members have no manner of right to claim the work of the petitioner. It is further contended that eventhough Ext.P4 complaint was submitted before the 2nd respondent, no steps was taken to remove such physical obstruction or to afford protection for the works. 3. Inspite of service notice from this court, the respondents 3 to 5 have not entered appearance and not contested the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has got every right to do the unloading of building materials by engaging workers of his own choice. We do not find any statutory right conferred on the members of respondents 3 to 5 to claim such work or to cause any obstruction demanding any gratification. WP(C) .20596/2011 3 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take necessary steps to remove physical obstruction if any caused to the work of the petitioner including the loading- unloading works conducted by engaging persons of his own choice, and to afford necessary protection for executing the work if there is any obstruction. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .20596/2011 4