K.T.Shaji vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 13239 Ker

WP(C) NO. 6718 OF 2021         1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 6718 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     K.T.SHAJI
          AGED 59 YEARS
          S/O THANKKAPPAN TC-27/267, MUTTATHUSSERY HOUSE,
          CHEMBUKKAVU, CHEROOR ROAD, THRISSUR CITY, THIRSSUR
          DISTRICT, PIN-680 020.

    2     JISSY SHAJI,
          W/O K.T.SHAJI, MUTTATHUSSERY HOUSE, TC-27/267,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR CITY,
          THRISSUR, PIN-680 020.

          BY ADV RANJIT BABU



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, RAMAVARMAPURAM
          ROAD, PALLIMOOLA, MANNUMKAD, RAMAVARMAPURAM,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-680 631.

    2     THE STATION HOUSE, OFFICER,
          VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-KUNDUKAD ROAD,
          MANNUMKAD, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          KERALA, PIN-680 001.

    3     HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
          JAIHIND MARKET BUILDING, KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU
          MAIDAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680001,

          REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT CHAIRMAN

    4     SUNDARAN KUNNATHULLY,
          PRESIDENT, INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS,
          INTUC OFFICE, PONGANAMGAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
 WP(C) NO. 6718 OF 2021       2



          PIN-680 631.

    5     SATHYAN.K.K,
          KILLIYATH HOUSE, PONGANAMGAD, KURICHIKKARA (PO),
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 631.

    6     SANTHOSH K.S,
          KARAVATTE HOUSE, PONGANAMGAD, KURICHIKKARA (PO),
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 631.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB
          SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN


          SRI PP THAJUDEEN,GOVERNMENT PLEADER



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 6718 OF 2021               3



                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein are husband and wife respectively. It is

contended in the writ petition that they own an item of property within the

limits of Kurichikkara Village of Thrissur District, wherein two godown

buildings, which have been numbered as building No. 16/564A and 16/564Z,

are situated. As the godowns are in a dilapidated condition, the petitioners

decided to carry out the repairs. When construction materials were brought,

the party respondents, claiming themselves to be members of a trade union,

are alleged to have caused obstructions claiming that the unloading works

should be entrusted with them. The petitioners assert that the godown is

situated in an area where the operation of the scheme of 1983 has not been

extended and in that view of the matter, the party respondents have no

authority to claim work. When the petitioners objected to their action, the

party respondents are alleged to have threatened and intimidated them.

Stating all these aspects and seeking protection, the petitioners are stated to

have lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent as is evidenced by Ext.P2.

When no action was taken, they approached the 1st respondent and lodged

Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioners is that no action is being taken by the

police. It is in the afore circumstances that they have approached this Court

seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide effective protection

to the life and property of the petitioners and their workmen so as to enable

them to carry out the work.

2. I have heard Sri.Ranjit Babu, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners, Sri.Arun, the learned counsel appearing for the party

respondents and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the Head Load Workers Welfare Board.

3. The learned Standing counsel submitted on instructions that the

godowns are not situated in an area where the operation of the scheme has

been extended.

4. I find that this Court, after hearing the petitioners as well as the

respondents, had granted an interim order on 22.3.2021 directing the 2nd

respondent to take steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in

the locality in connection with any loading and unloading activity in the

petitioners' gowdowns bearing Nos.16/564A and 16/564Z. As the godowns

are not situated in an area where the provisions of the scheme have been

extended and as the godown cannot be categorized as an establishment as

defined under Section 2(j) of the Act, the respondents cannot claim any right

to do the loading and unloading work. The petitioners are entitled to employ

their own workers to carry out the work in the construction site.

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1

and 2 to ensure that no obstruction is caused to the construction of the

godown carried out by the petitioners by the party respondents and also make

sure that no harm is caused to the petitioners and their workers while

pursuing the construction activities. No costs.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6718/2021

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY KURICHIKKARA VILLAGE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P1 (A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY KURICHIKKARA VILLAGE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.2.2021 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS 28371/2021

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.3.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH A COPY TO 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4.3.2021 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS 14353/2021/RC

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL