IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23372 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VASAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN THATTAVAZHIPUTHEN VEEDU, ERUVA KIZHAKKU PO, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE S.P.OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CI OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM 690 513. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM PIN 690 513. 4. V.SUKU @ SUKUMARAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VALLETHU VEETTIL, NADAIKKAVU MURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA PIN 690 514. 5. GOPALAKRISHNAN DO..DO.. 6. BHARGHAVAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VISHNU NIVAS, PATHIYOOR KIZHAKKUM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY 690 512. 7. VISHNU, S/O.BHARGAVAN DO..DO.. svs ..........2/-..... ...2... WPC. NO.23372/2011 8. AJAYAN, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.NATARAJAN CHETTIYAR,PUTHENKANDATHIL, NADAICKAVU MURI, MAVELIKKARA PIN 690 514. 9. VIJAYAN DO..DO.. 10. SREEDHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS THONDUKANDATHIL,PERINGALA, MAVELIKKARA PIN 695 514 11. SANTHOSH, AGED 36 YEARS CHANGOOR,PADEETTATHIL,PERIGALA, MAVELIKKARA-690 514 . 12. UNNI (A) JAGACHANDRAN DO..DO.. 13. KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS PEROORVADAKKATHIL, PERINGALA, MAVELIKKARA PIN 690514. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4-13 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 23372/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.930/2011 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. R4(a):COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 18/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NADAKAVU HYNDAVA KARAYOGAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 23372 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. Petitioner is seeking direction to respondents 1 to 3 for affording protection to the lives of himself and his family members, and for the smooth conduct of his business. It is stated that the petitioner and his son are conducting business of Ration Shop, Grocery Shop and sales of Cement in a shop building attached to his residence. Respondents 4 to 6 are brothers of the petitioner and the 7th respondent is the son of the 6th respondent. Respondents 8 to 13 are allegedly the henchmen of respondents 4 to 7. 2. It is alleged that the respondents 4 to 13 are obstructing conduct of the business in the Ration Shop, because of dispute arose with respect to termination of WP(C). 23372/11 -2- service of the 4th respondent who was working as salesman in the Ration Shop. It is alleged that on 17-8-2011 the respondents caused obstruction to a vehicle in which cement was brought to the shop building and the petitioner has to send back the lorry without unloading. It is further alleged that respondents 4, 6, 7 and 12 along with son-in- law of the 9th respondent, had attacked the younger son of the petitioner and abused the family members. According to the petitioner, inspite of submitting Ext.P1 complaint regarding the illegal obstructions and violence caused, no effective and proper steps has been taken by respondents 1 to 3. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 13 it is contended that, the writ petition is filed only as a counter blast of a criminal case registered against the petitioner, as crime No.930/11 of Kayamkulam Police Station, copy of the FIR is registering the case was WP(C). 23372/11 -3- produced as Ext.R4. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner along with his sons manhandled the 6th respondent on 18-8-2011. It is further alleged that the the petitioner and his sons are creating threat and provocations, abusing the respondents with filthy language and threatening assault on them by carrying deadly weapons. It is stated that against such actions a complaint was lodged by the 6th respondent, as evident from Ext. R4(A). The contesting respondents have raised various allegations regarding misconduct and irregularities of the petitioner in running the Ration Shop. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that, there exists a dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 with respect to termination of the service of the 4th respondent. It is also submitted that on the basis of a complaint received from the 6th respondent, criminal case as stated above was WP(C). 23372/11 -4- registered against the petitioner and his sons. However, it is stated that there exists no threat to the lives of the petitioner or his sons and that there is no obstruction caused to the business activity, at present. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, we are of the opinion that the dispute between the parties relating to retrenchment of service of the 4th respondent can be agitated before the competent authorities. However, neither the respondents 4 to 13 nor the petitioner are not entitled to take law into their own hands or to cause breach of peace or violence. So also the respondents 4 to 13 are not entitled to cause any obstruction to the business activities of the petitioner. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to have vigil over the situation and to ensure that the dispute is not leading to any violence or breach of piece. If there is any threat to the life of the WP(C). 23372/11 -5- petitioner or his family members or to the life of respondents 4 to 7, the necessary steps shall be taken to afford protection. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-