IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16019 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.NASAR MUHAMMED,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MAMMOOTTY,'SALEELAS',19TH MILE,CHAVASSERI. 2. O.K.ARSHAD,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.A.P.ABDUSSALAM,AYISHA MANZIL,KAICHERI.P.O, CHITTARIPPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. RASHEED KALLANANDI,AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAHAMED HAJEE,LORRY TURN OFFICE,NEAR ULIYIL SUB REGISTRY,KEEZHOOR, IRITTY.PIN-670 011 2. MANNAL JOY,AGED 58 YEARS,S/O.DEVASI, LORRY TURN OFFICE,NEAR ULIYIL SUB REGISTRY, KEEZHOOR, IRITTY.PIN- 670 011 3. K.P.IBRAHIM,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.N.K.KADER, LORRY TURN OFFICE,NEAR ULIYIL SUB REGISTRY, KEEZHOOR,IRITTY.PIN- 670 011 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY.PIN-670 011 5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRITTY.670 011 R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16019/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF DEPARTMENT OF SALES TAX HELD BY THE PETITIONER NO.1. P2 COPY OF THE SALES TAX REGISTRATION NO.32121038248C DATED 14/8/2009 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ON 6/6/2011. P4 COPY OF THE REPORT IN CHANDRIKA DAILY DATED 9/6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2011-B ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners claim to be traders purchasing coconuts and other agricultural products from cultivators and retailers. They are engaged in the business of transporting the same to neighbouring States in the vehicles owned by them or hired by them from other transporting agencies. According to the petitioners, there is illegal obstruction to their right to carry on business. This comes from respondents 1 to 3 who call themselves officials of the Lorry Turn Office. According to the petitioners, respondents 1 to 3 are arbitrarily imposing restrictions on the right of the petitioners to engage transporters of their choice. Respondents 1 to 3 and their Association appear to insist that only such transporters to whom the work is assigned by their Association by turn alone shall be permitted to take up the work of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, this insistence has no sanction of law. An Association of transporters may impose regulations among the members on the W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2011 -: 2 :- basis of consent of such members. But the petitioners' option to engage persons who are not members of the Association and to get their work done by such persons cannot in any way be obstructed by respondents 1 to 3. They cannot resort to such an exercise and attempt to justify the same on the basis of the rules framed by the Association for their own guidance. It may be ensured that the petitioners are given protection to engage transporters of their choice if such transporters are willing to transport their goods and articles. This, in short, is the plea of the petitioners. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance through counsel. To start with it is submitted that respondents 1 to 3 or other members of the Association shall not in any way object to or obstruct the option of the petitioners to engage transporters of their choice. Respondents 1 to 3 have no intention to raise any such obstruction, it is conceded. 3. However, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that such a self-imposed rule among the transporters will cater better to the interests of harmony. One transporter/transporting agency shall not then be entitled to corner all work. Equal and equitable distribution of work can be achieved by such self-imposed restriction on the part of the W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2011 -: 3 :- transporters/members of the Association of respondents 1 to 3. In these circumstances, the learned counsel only prays that police/revenue authorities may be directed to officially recognize the practice and ensure that there is fair and equitable distribution of work among the transporters. Such a healthy arrangement would better cater to the interests of workmen employed in the transporting industry also, submits the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 4. Sri. Pramod, Advocate, submits that he wants to file an application on behalf of the workmen of the transporters who are members of the Lorry Owners' Association (i.e., respondents 1 to 3). He wants to get impleaded. According to him, the arrangement of turn of work brought in by the Owners' Association/respondents 1 to 3, will cater to the interests of the workmen better. It is hence prayed that police protection may not be granted to the petitioners. 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that the police have been assured that respondents 1 to 3 or persons acting under them shall not in any manner obstruct the freedom of the petitioners and others similarly placed to engage lorry operators of their choice to transport their goods. However, members of the Association of W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2011 -: 4 :- respondents 1 to 3 shall take up such work only in accordance with the system introduced by the Association of lorry owners. They have no objection against non-members of the Association who have not accepted the self-imposed rule regarding turn system taking up any work. However, the counsel reiterates that it will be advantageous and fair to introduce such a system in the interests of harmony. 6. The learned counsel respondents 1 to 3 submits that it is not as though the petitioners have come to this Court with bona fides. They are only name lenders to some lorry owners who are not members of the Association of respondents 1 to 3. They do not want to join as members of the Association and want to independently corner all the work. The counsel reiterates that the petitioners have come to this Court without bona fides. 7. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. There is no law or rule which obliges the petitioners to engage only transporters/lorry operators as decided/dictated by respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners are not in law obliged to engage any such particular transporter suggested by respondents 1 to 3. We are unable to locate on any piece of law, rules or binding agreements under which the petitioners can be compelled to engage lorry operators following the turn system W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2011 -: 5 :- introduced by the Association of lorry operators. 8. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer of the petitioners is only to be allowed. 9. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to afford protection to the petitioners in the event of any obstruction by respondents 1 to 3 against the petitioners engaging lorry operators/ transporters of their choice to transport their goods. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(C) No. 16019 of 2011 -: 6 :-