Kerala High Court
M.A. Anzar vs The District Police Chief on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21406 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 M.A. ANZAR
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, SHAMNA GARDENS, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 004.
2 AMEER HAMZA,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O EBRAHIMKUTTY, MELEVILA VEDU, MYLAPOOR, UMAYANALLOOR
P.O.KOLLAM-691 589.
BY ADV N.D.DIPINGHOSH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM RURAL OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691
001.
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM,KOLLAM-691 011.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM , KOLLAM-691 011.
4 S.RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 59 YEARS
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, MULLASERRY BANGLOW,
PERUMPUZHA P.O.KOLLAM-691 504.
BY ADV R.KISHORE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21406 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners say that they have been threatened by the 4 th
respondent, who is a Trade Union leader, solely because the Cashew
Factory being run by the first among them has been forced to be
closed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic scenario, as also the
economic crisis; and he has let out the same to the 2 nd petitioner,
under a lease agreement, for conducting furniture manufacturing and
sales business.
2. The petitioners say that the 4th respondent is now meting
out constant threats and intimidation to both of them and therefore,
that they had been constrained to approach the Munsiff Court, Kollam,
by filing O.S.No.536/2021 and to obtain Ext.P3 order of injunction.
They allege that, inspite of this, the 4th respondent is acting in
violation of law and in flagrant disregard for Ext.P3 and consequently,
that they were driven to approach the 1 st respondent - District Police
Chief, through Ext.P4; as also the 2nd respondent - Circle Inspector of
Police, through Ext.P5, seeking protection; but that since no action
was taken thereon, they have been left without no other option other
than to move this Court through this writ petition. They, therefore,
WP(C) NO. 21406 OF 2021
pray that said respondents be directed to afford them and their
properties adequate protection.
3. In response, Sri.R.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for
the 4th respondent, submitted that what the petitioners are attempting
to do by approaching this Court is to validate an illegal action. He
argued that the 1st petitioner has closed down the Cashew Factory
without issuing the necessary and mandatory notice under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act for short) and that his
employees have therefore, been extremely prejudiced. He submitted
that his client is the office bearer of a Trade Union, in which the
employees of the 1st petitioner are members; and consequently, that
he and the said employees have invoked all legal remedies as are
available to them against the 1 st petitioner. He, however, added that,
contrary to the allegations of the petitioner, the 4 th respondent has not
taken law into his own hands nor has he caused any physical
obstruction to the petitioners or meted out threats or intimidation to
them.
4. Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader appearing
for the official respondents, submitted that, in obedience to the
interim order of this Court dated 07.10.2021, Police have ensured that
law and order is maintained in the area in question and that no
WP(C) NO. 21406 OF 2021
untoward incidents have been reported thereafter.
5. When I analyse the afore rival stands of the parties, it is
clear that, on one hand, the petitioners assert that they have a right to
close down the Cashew Factory and to start a new business; while on
the other, the 4th respondent maintains that 1st petitioner has done so
without following the imperative and mandatory provisions of the ID
Act, it being thus illegal.
6. Even if one is to find in favour of the 4 th respondent, he
cannot be allowed to act in contravention of law or to cause any
physical obstruction or violence to the petitioners or to anyone else.
His remedy - as is conceded to have already been invoked - is to
approach the competent Court or Authority, under the applicable
Statutes and Regulations, for ventilation of his grievances, but
violation of law or breach of peace can never be countenanced.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and confirm
the interim order dated 07.10.2021; with a consequential direction to
the 3rd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police to act as per its terms and
to ensure that law and order is maintained in the area in question
without any breach being permitted by anyone in future.
Needless to say, the 4th respondent or any of the employees of
the petitioners are at full liberty to invoke and pursue all remedies
WP(C) NO. 21406 OF 2021
that may be available to them and such rights will not be hampered or
fettered by any of my observations or directions above.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 21406 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21406/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
25.9.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IS ON NO 536/2021 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION NUMBERED
AS IA NO 1/2021 IN OS NO 536/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF
COURT, KOLLAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAIN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.2021
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.2021
