C.V. Jayachandran vs State of Kerala and Others

Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.—This is the fourth occasion that this court had to consider the right of petitioner to carry on his business, without

let or hindrance from 7th respondent and those acting under it. Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm ''Sarathy Motors'' dealing in two and

three wheelers. These are brought in doubledeck lorries from Pune and unloaded in petitioner''s show room by skilled workers with the aid of a

ramp. According to petitioner, of the 11 workmen, four are trained at ''Bajaj Auto Ltd.''. It is alleged that those acting under the 7th respondent,

had been obstructing the work of unloading scooters, from lorries, desiring to do it themselves.

Petitioner moved this court by O. P. 648/88 complaining of interference by 7th respondent, and by Ext. P1 judgment dated 11-2-1988 a

learned Judge of this court directed Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of

Police, Quilon to render aid to petitioner to carry on his business without hindrance from 7th respondent. 7th respondent appealed against that

judgment and by Ext. P2, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the view of the learned Judge that,

Union have no legal right and that if..... the Union interferes with the legitimate right of choosing one''s own workmen for unloading, it becomes the

duty of the police to prevent unlawful action of causing obstruction"".

Undaunted by two judgments of this court, 7th respondent continued their ways, and once again petitioner had to move this court by O. P.

2917/88. By Ext. P3 judgment, a learned Judge of this court directed :

......there shall be no obstruction or impediment for the petitioner for the lawful carrying on of the business of the petitioner. If there is any

impediment or obstruction ........ police officials are bound to give all police aid and help to the petitioner"".

Even thereafter, situation remained the same and so petitioner submits, this petition was filed. On notice, 7th respondent appeared and made an

undertaking on 21-2-89. The learned Judge before whom the petition was listed, recorded :

Shri Dharmadan representing 7th respondent submitted that no one affiliated to 7th respondent has ever caused any obstruction to the business of

petitioner. He further undertook that none attached to 7th respondent will cause any interference"".

The undertaking obviously was little more than lip service, both as regards past and future. That no obstruction was caused in the past was

incorrect. This court found such obstruction in Exts. P1, P2 and P3. As for future also, 7th respondent did not mean their word. After the

undertaking was made there is clear evidence of violation thereof. Complaints were made by counsel for petitioner regarding repeated

transgressions. Respondents took time for instructions and each time came up with denials.

Thereafter, the Government Pleader was required to obtain a report from the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police is said to

have visited the factory and made enquiries. He found a shed put up by 7th respondent, adjoing petitioner''s show room, at a distance of just 80

Cms. from the pillar of the gate. He also found that followers of 7th respondent, were causing obstruction. Cognisable offences were committed. A

crime was registered on 11-4-89. Counsel for 7th respondent submits that nothing other than ''peaceful agitation'' is taking place. ''Peaceful'',

''agitation'' is a contradiction in terms. This is a phrase, often, used in these regions, perhaps thoughtlessly -- perhaps as an apology for something

far from peaceful. Anything peaceful cannot be, an agitation.

Whatever it is, facts clearly reveal that despite orders of this court, 7th respondent is persisting in unlawful acts. Such a state of affairs cannot be

countenanced in any system of governance, that sets its faith in the rule of law. A group of individuals possess, no higher rights than a citizen, and

what would be wrong on the part of a citizen would certainly be wrong on the part of a group. It is dangerous, to create privileged groups. Beyond

a point it is bound, to create resistance. Those who feel exposed and unprotected, would devise means of protecting themselves and their interests.

They look for agencies to protect them and enforce their rights. A corn of today will mature into an Oak of tomorrow. That in the long run would

not prove congenial to rule of law. Obedience to law must be enforced at all costs.

In the circumstances, I direct the Superintendent of Police to demolish the shed put up at a distance of 80 Cms. from one of the pillars of the

gate of petitioner''s show room. Constructions of an unauthorised character on National Highways can prove not only a source of annoyance, but

positive hazard to traffic. If 7th respondent or any person acting under it obstructs petitioner in the conduct of his business, such obstruction shall

be removed by use of such force, as is necessary. If cognizable offences are committed, it will be the plain responsibility of the police to register-

crimes and proceed in accordance with law and proceed in a purposeful manner.

Original petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.