Kerala High Court
Rajan vs The City Police Commissioner on 4 April, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7673 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. NATARAJAN, KOLANNOR KIZHAKKE PARAVILA VEETTIL,
EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691505
BY ADVS.
PRATHEESH.P
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
JOSHNA JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THIRUVALLOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695027
3 THE SECRETARY
HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, TC 24/1922,
K.ANIRUDHAN ROAD, DPI, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695014
BY ADV Thomas Abraham
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P M SHAMEER-GP; SRI THOMAS ABRAHAM-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7673 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he is constructing a "Jack Fruit Processing
Hub", on the strength of all the requisite licences, consents and
permissions, as also the Work Order from the "Kerala State Nirmithi
Kendra", to a total cost of more than Rs.2 Crores. He says that,
however, some persons in the locality are obstructing the loading and
unloading work of the building materials and therefore, that he has
preferred Ext.P2 complaint before the 2nd respondent, seeking
protection. He alleges that even though the area is not one that is
covered by a Scheme issued under the provisions of the Kerala
Headload Workers Act, 1978 ('Act' for short), the 2 nd respondent is
refusing to give protection; thus forcing him to approach this Court
through this writ petition.
2. The afore assertions of Smt.Mariya Jose - learned counsel for
the petitioner, that the area where the construction is going on is not
covered by a Scheme under the 'Act', was affirmed by the learned
Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent - Sri.Thomas Abraham.
3. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Shameer, therefore,
submitted that if this Court is so inclined, the 2 nd respondent can afford
necessary and effective protection to the petitioner and his employees,
provided, he acts on the strength of valid consents and licences.
4. In the afore circumstances and recording the submissions of
Sri.Thomas Abraham, that the area where the petitioner is carrying on
construction is not one that is covered by a Scheme under the 'Act', I
direct the 2nd respondent to afford necessary and effective protection to
him and his employees without let or hindrance from any person,
provided they are acting on the strength of all licences and consents as
are mandatory.
5. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Smt.Mariya Jose -
learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that her client is willing to
engage workers from the pool maintained by the 3rd respondent in the
adjacent area and sought liberty to approach them for such purpose.
6. Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd
respondent in response to this, submitted that, if the petitioner is to
make any such request, it will be considered and necessary orders
issued thereon. This is recorded.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/4.4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7673/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER ISSUED BY THE
REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI
KENDRA TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27.10.2023
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
09.02.2024 ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT
