Sarika Sivaprasad vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18273 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 9125 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

         SARIKA SIVAPRASAD
         AGED 35 YEARS
         KALATHINATTIL, EDAKKULAM, THRISSUR.

         BY ADVS.
         K.P.SANTHI
         SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL
         SMT.SARIMOL KAREETHARA



RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL
         SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM
         695 001.

    2    THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
         JYOTHI NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, CHALAKKUDY, KERALA 680
         307.

    3    THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
         VELLIKULANGARA, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR 680 307.

    4    BIJU,
         SON OF KUMARAN, THOTTATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA
         P.O. THRISSUR 680 724.

    5    MOHANAN,
         SON OF VELAYUDHAN, NJATUVETY HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O.
         THRISSUR 680 724.

    6    SHAJU P.O.,
         HOUSE NO. 836, PENGIPARAMBIL, KUTTICHIRA P.O.
         THRISSUR 680 724.

    7    SUBRAMANYAN (MAASH),
         THONDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA P.O. THRISSUR 680
         724.
 WP(C) NO. 9125 OF 2021           2



    8       RENJITH,
            SON OF RAVEENDRAN, PALLIYIL HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA
            P.O. THRISSUR 680 724.

    9       DEVADASAN
            SON OF CHATHUNI, VALLATHU HOUSE,
            KUTTICHIRA P.O. THRISSUR 680 724.


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   07.09.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9125 OF 2021                3

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that respondents 4 to 9

are causing illegal and uncalled for obstruction

to the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Dealership,

which is awarded to her by the Indian Oil

Corporation, through Ext.P1. The petitioner says

that the action of the party respondents is

confutative and intended to extort money from her;

and therefore, that she was constrained to

approach the 3rd respondent - Station House

Officer, through Ext.P12 request, seeking police

protection.

2. The petitioner alleges that since the 3rd

respondent did not take any action on her request,

she has been constrained to approach this Court

through this writ petition. The petitioner,

therefore, prays that 3rd respondent be directed to

afford adequate and effective protection to her,

the employees and distributors, so as to enable

her to operate the same, without any let or

hindrance from respondents 4 to 9.

3. I notice that when this matter was

considered by this Court on 06.08.2021, an interim

order had been granted as prayed for by the

petitioner and consequently that 3rd respondent was

directed to afford protection to the petitioner's

life.

4. Shri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government

Pleader, submitted that consequent to the afore

mentioned interim order of this Court, necessary

action has already been taken by the Police

Authorities and that they have ensured that there

are no law and order issues in the area in

question. He submitted that if this Court is so

inclined, the 3rd respondent will maintain a vigil

in the said area to ensure that none of the

parties are allowed to take law into their own

hands or to commit breach of peace in any manner

whatsoever.

5. I see that even though summons from this

Court have been validly served on respondents 4 to

9, they have chosen not to be present in person or

to be represented through counsel; inferentially

guiding me to the impression that they have no

opposition to the reliefs sought for in this writ

petition being granted to the petitioner.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ

petition and direct the 3rd respondent to ensure

that petitioner's business is allowed to be

operated without any let or hindrance from

respondents 4 to 9; and for such purpose, to

afford protection to lives of her and employees',

as and when any petition is preferred by her for

such purpose.

It goes without saying that 3rd respondent

shall ensure that law and order in the area in

question is constantly maintained and that none of

the parties are allowed to take law into their

hands or to commit any conduct which will have the

effect of violation of peace in any manner

whatsoever.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/15.9

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9125/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 3.1.2019 OF THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 3.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE PETROLEUM AD EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO) DATED 19.9.2018.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2020

OF 2020 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.5.2020 OF THE PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2020

OF 2020 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2020 OF THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.1.2021 IN WP(C) NO. 492 OF 2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 22.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.3.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.3.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.