Sony .S vs The District Police Chief
2023 Latest Caselaw 1994 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 38817 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

     1        SONY .S, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O SOMAN
              KALLUVILA HOUSE, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P O
              KOLLAM, PIN-691302
     2        ULLAS.S, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN
              KALLUVILA HOUSE, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P O
              KOLLAM, PIN-691302

              BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
              OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, VHJW-5WV
              MUNDAKKAL, KIOLLAM, KERALA-691001
     2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION
              RQ66+78M, NH66, KARIMTHOTTUVA, PARIPPALLY-691574
     3        IRSHAD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O ANFEER, IRSHAD MANZIL
              MYLAVILA, PUTHENKULAM PO, PIN-691574
     4        VINOD, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O VIJAYAN PILLAI
              PADMALAYAM, PARIPPALLY PO, PIN-691574
     5        AJAYA KUMA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O ANANDAN
              CHEMBALAYIL, PUVATHOOR, VELLAMANOOR PO-691574

              SRI.E.C. BINEESH GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.38817 of 2022



                                2


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2023

The petitioners, who are autorickshaw drivers, are

before this Court seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to

provide adequate and effective police protection to the life and

property of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners state that they are autorickshaw

drivers. The petitioners are given permission to ride their

autorickshaws in front of Paripally Pambaram Medical

College, by the R.T.O., Kollam. The Station House Officer

allowed only 50 autorickshaws in the above said autorickshaw

stand. The petitioners were permitted to park their

autorickshaws there.

3. The petitioners state that they resigned from their

earlier Trade Union and joined some other Trade Union.

Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 are obstructing the WP(C) No.38817 of 2022

petitioners from plying their autorickshaws and are abusing

the petitioners in public. Counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the autorickshaws are not permitted to be parked

in the stipulated autorickshaw parking area by respondents 3

and 4.

4. Government Pleader entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all

the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ

petition. It is submitted on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that

criminal cases are pending against the petitioners and Section

107 proceedings are also initiated. Attempt of the petitioners

is to escape from investigation in those proceedings by

obtaining a police protection order. As the petitioners are

accused in crimes, no police protection can be granted to

them, contends the Government Pleader.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Government Pleader representing WP(C) No.38817 of 2022

respondents 1 and 2.

6. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident

that the petitioners are autorickshaw drivers and they have

been issued with registration. They are entitled to park their

vehicles in the stipulated autorickshaw stand. Though the

petitioners are accused in crimes, they are eking out their

livelihood from plying autorickshaws. Therefore, respondents

1 and 2 are bound to protect the petitioners from following

their avocation from the threat of any others including

respondents 4 and 5.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer that if the

petitioners prefer any complaint in respect of obstruction to ply

their autorickshaws or parking their autorickshaws at the

stipulated parking place, the 2nd respondent shall enquire into

the matter and take appropriate action against the obstructors.

It is made clear that this judgment will not in any manner WP(C) No.38817 of 2022

prevent respondents 1 and 2 from proceeding with

investigation in respect of the crimes registered against the

petitioners as also in respect of Section 107 proceedings.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.38817 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38817/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY REPRESENTATION LETTER TO THE SHO OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION DATED 24.11.2022 Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION LETTER TO THE DISTRICT POLICE COMMISSIONER DATED 24.11.2022