Abdul Razak v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/28TH KARTHIKA, 1937 ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- ABDUL RAZAK, PROPRIETOR, HILL PRODUCE DEALER, MUBARAK TRADERS, NELLIMALA JUNCTION, VANDIPERIYAR P.O., VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
ADVS. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI-685 501.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 533.
4. RAVI, MEMBER, CITU UNION, VALADI UNIT, VANDIPERIYAR P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 533.
5. SOMAN, MEMBER, CITU UNION, VALADI UNIT, VANDIPERIYAR P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 533.
6. VASU, MEMBER, CITU UNION, VALADI UNIT, VANDIPERIYAR P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 533.
* ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED
7. HEADLOAD WORKERS BOARD, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
* ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.10.2015 IN IA. NO.14295/2015.
R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R. SYAMKUMAR. ADDL. R7 BY ADV. SRI.C.S. AJITH PRAKASH, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 26734 OF 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection alleging that respondents 4 to 6 and their men are obstructing the loading and unloading work being carried on in the premises of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent submits that the area in question is not a scheme covered area. Such being the facts, we do not think that respondents 4 to 6 or their men can obstruct the petitioner from carrying on the loading and unloading work with his own workers.
3. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction th the 3rd respondent to ensure maintenance of law and order and to see that no obstruction is being caused by respondents 4 to 6 or their men in the matter relating to loading and unloading work being done by the petitioner by engaging his own workers.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/19/11