IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10697 of 2011(J) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- YUNUSSALIM, S/O.P.C.AHAMMEDKUTTY, KOYITHODY CHATHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE SOUTH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEENCHANDHA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE – 673 631 4. THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION (CITU), FEROKE AREA COMMITTEE, FEROKE, 13/784-A, KILIPPARAMBA, ANNIE HALL ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT C.V.ABOOBACKER. 5. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 631. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 10697 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.2.2011 IN WP(C) NO. 4687/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.10697 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner runs business in marble slabs, granite slabs, ceramic tiles etc. The petitioner had occasion to come to this Court earlier and by Ext.P1 judgment, police protection was afforded to the petitioner. We extract the contents of the said judgment below. “The petitioner seeks police protection for carrying out loading and unloading works through his permanent workmen. His uncontroverted plea is that the area is not covered by any scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules. Under such circumstances, the police officials will provide adequate security to the life of the petitioner and his workmen and ensure that there is no obstruction to the loading and unloading works. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.” 2. The petitioner has now been compelled to come to this Court again. According to the petitioner, the ingress and egress of vehicles to the petitioner's establishment is being obstructed on the convenient and specious plea that WPC No.10697/2011 2 the above order does not prohibit obstruction to such ingress and egress by vehicles. The short prayer of the petitioner is that it may be clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to have protection for the free ingress and egress of vehicles. 3. All the respondents in this writ petition were respondents in Ext.P1 proceedings also. All respondents are served. There is no appearance for respondent No.4. We are satisfied that to be reasonable the clarification sought has to be granted, as without access for vehicles into and out of the petitioner's premises, police protection granted for loading and unloading vehicles would become illusory. The learned Government Pleader only submits that no specific complaint was received by the police that there was any obstruction for vehicular access to the petitioner's premises. 4. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the prayer in this writ petition can be allowed. 5. In the result, a) This writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 WPC No.10697/2011 3 are directed to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner against respondent No.4 to prevent any obstruction to the petitioner's premises and also to ensure ingress and egress of vehicles to the petitioner's premises. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/