Kerala High Court
Haridas V vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 15011 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
HARIDAS V, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT LAKSHMIDARSANAM, THEKKETHARA,
P.O.KAVASSERY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678543.
BY ADVS.
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
C.H.ABDUL RASAC
GRACY POULOSE
PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR,
HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PUTHUPPARIYARAM P.O.,
KALLEKKULANAGARA, PALAKKAD-678009.
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD,
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD-680631.
3 THE DEPOT MANAGER, PALAKKAD, KERALA STATE CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION (SUPPLYCO) DEPOT, KALMANDAPAM,
PALAKKAD-678001.
4 THE GODOWN MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI)
GODOWN, OLAVAKKODE P.O., OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678002.
5 THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION,
LORRY DIVISION COMMITTEE, FCI UNIT AFFILIATED TO
CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS (CITU) OFFICE-C,
6/393, P.O.OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678002.
WPC 15011/21
2
6 THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT LORRY EMPLOYEES
CONGRESS, OLAVAKKODE, FCI UNIT AFFILIATED TO ALL
INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (AITUC), REG. NO.09-
40F 1991, P.O.OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678002.
7 THE SECRETARY, SWATHANTHRA THOZHILALI UNION
(STU), LORRY EMPLOYEES UNION, OLAVAKKODE FCI
UNIT, NEAR FCI GODOWN, OLAVAKKODE P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678002.
BY ADVS.
SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO
N.SATHEESH
T.C.SURESH MENON
K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
S.RAKHEE
PRIYA CAROL
B.DEEPAK
SRI.E.C.BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 15011/21
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be a Contractor
under the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation
('SUPPLYCO') for lifting and transportation of
rationed articles from the Food Corporation of
India (FCI) godowns with respect to Chittur and
Palakkad Taluks. He says that he has been awarded
with Exts.P1 and P2 agreements, under which, he is
obliged to provide a fleet of vehicles, along with
personnel, for transportation of articles; but
that when he was engaged in such, he was
obstructed by the members of respondents 5 and 6
Unions, asserting that they alone have the right
to provide vehicles for this purpose.
2. The petitioner says that obstruction
caused by the members of respondents 5 and 6 is
wholly illegal and unlawful and contrary to the
provisions of National Food Security Act, 2013 and
says that, therefore, he was forced to approach
WPC 15011/21
the 1st respondent-Circle Inspector of Police with
Ext.P3 request seeking Police protection. He says
that since the 1st respondent did not afford
adequate and effective protection, he was
constrained to approach this Court through this
Writ Petition and prays that respondents 1 and 2
be directed to afford protection to him, his
employees and vehicles engaged in carrying out the
activities as per Exts.P1 and P2 agreements.
3. I have heard Sri.K.R.Avinash - learned
counsel for the petitioner; Sri.N.Sathish -
learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent;
Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon - learned counsel for the 6 th
respondent; Smt.Molly Jacob - learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent; Sri.Vivek
Varghese - learned counsel for the 4th respondent
and Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
4. Sri.N.Sathish and Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon -
learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6
WPC 15011/21
respectively, commenced their arguments in
opposition to the plea of the petitioner, saying
that until Exts.P1 and P2 Agreements had been
entered into, transportation of articles were
being done using their clients' vehicles and that,
they had equipped them with all necessary and
imperative features like GPS and such other for
the purpose. They further submitted that even
though their clients had done so, the SUPPLYCO had
gone ahead and entered into Exts.P1 and P2
Agreements with the petitioner and asserted that
this is illegal and unlawful. They thus prayed
that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
5. As an alternative submission,
Sri.N.Sathish and Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon submitted
that even if this Court is inclined to grant any
protection to the petitioner, it may be confined
to the vehicles mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2
Agreements, which are the only ones that can be
used by him for carrying out the activities as per
WPC 15011/21
the said Agreements. They added that they are
constrained to make this submission because, the
petitioner, under the guise of Exts.P1 and P2
Agreements, is now carrying on the activities
using various other vehicles and that this is
illegal and unlawful.
6. Smt.Molly Jacob - learned Standing Counsel
for the SUPPLYCO, confirmed that Exts.P1 and P2
had been entered into with the petitioner by her
client and that under the provisions of National
Food Security Act, 2013, only authorised persons
can lift and transport articles from the godowns
on behalf of her client. She submitted that,
therefore, when the petitioner acts as per Exts.P1
and P2, no threats or intimidation can be meted
out to him by any person, including the members of
respondents 5 and 6. She added that, in any event
of the matter, respondents 5 and 6 or their men
cannot have any case against SUPPLYCO because they
were appointed as the Authorised Agencies by the
WPC 15011/21
Government only in the year 2016 and that they
have been appointing persons like the petitioner
through an open system. She thus argued that the
claim, if any, of respondents 5 and 6 can only be
with respect to works which are outside the ambit
of the National Food Security Act, 2013; and
consequently, prayed that this Writ Petition be
allowed and necessary protection be granted to the
petitioner and his vehicles by respondents 1 and
2.
7. Sri.Vivek Varghese - learned Standing
Counsel for the FCI, also affirmed that, under the
provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013
his client will allow transportation of rationed
articles only through persons/entities permitted
by the Authorised Agency and that consequent to
Exts.P1 and P2 Agreements, petitioner alone can be
recognised as such. He submitted that, therefore,
as long as the petitioner acts under the terms of
the Agreements, the FCI will permit him to lift
WPC 15011/21
and transport articles from their godowns and no
other person.
8. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it
is clear that the ire of respondents 5 and 7
cannot be targeted against the petitioner, since
he is only acting as per the Agreements, which is
under the ambit of National Food Security Act,
2013. If they have any complaints against the
SUPPLYCO, it is up to them to approach the
competent Authority and seek legal ventilation;
but they cannot take law into their hands or cause
obstruction to the petitioner or his vehicles.
Therefore, I am of the firm view that the
petitioner is entitled to protection, as has been
sought for in this Writ Petition.
9. This is more so because, Even if I accede
to the submissions of Sri.N.Sathish and
Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon that prior to 2016, their
vehicles were being used for the purpose of
lifting and transportation of articles from FCI
WPC 15011/21
godowns, it cannot inure any benefit to them
subsequent to the year 2016, when the SUPPLYCO is
stated to have been appointed as the Authorised
Agency by the Government of Kerala under the
National Food Security Act, 2013.
Consequently, this Writ Petition is allowed
and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford
adequate and effective protection to the
petitioner, his employees and vehicles - which are
mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 Agreements - to carry
on the activities as per its terms without any
interference from any person or entity, including
respondents 5 and 6 and their men or associates.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 15011/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15011/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
7.1.2021 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND DEPOT MANAGER, PALAKKAD
OF KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION (SUPPLYCO).
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
7.1.2021 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND DEPOT MANAGER, PALAKKAD
OF KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION (SUPPLYCO).
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
13.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
13.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE HEMAMBIKA NAGAR
POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.
