Rajeev V. vs The Commissioner of Police and Others

Antony Dominic, J.—The Petitioner submits that he is the Managing Partner of M/s. Neo Star Trading Company, Kadappakada, Kollam, engaged in the business of sanitary wares and fittings and other materials. In this writ petition he complains that, loading and unloading in his business establishment is obstructed by Respondents 6 to 9 and their members. According to him, complaining of the above, he made Ext.P4 complaint to Respondents 1 to 3 and since there was inaction on their part, the writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order of direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective Police Protection for life and property of the Petitioner and his workers for loading, unloading Works in the Shop M/s. Neo Star Trading Company, Kollam without any obstruction or hindrance from Workers of the Respondents 6 to 9 and their henchmen or anybody.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order of direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective Police Protection for life and property of the Petitioner and his workers for loading, unloading works in the Shop M/s. Neo Star Trading Company, Kollam and restrain the Workers of the Respondents 6 to 9 and their henchmen or anybody from causing any obstruction or hindrance to the ingress and egress of the loading and unloading works of the Shop.

(iii) To declare that the Petitioner and his workers are entitled to get Police Protection for life and property for loading, unloading works in the Shop M/s. Neo Star Trading Company, Kollam without any obstruction or hindrance from Workers of the Respondents 6 to 9 and their henchmen or anybody.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 10th Respondent submits that the area in question is not one covered by the scheme framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 8 and 9 submits that they have not created any obstruction nor do they intend to create any obstruction. It is further submitted that their members are already workers of the establishment of the Petitioner.

Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of Respondents 6 and 7.

Now that the area in question is not one covered by the scheme famed under the Act, the Petitioner is entitled to carry on the loading and unloading activities engaging his employees, without any obstruction from Respondent 6 to 9 or anybody else.

Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition directing that in the event, any obstruction is caused to the loading and unloading work in the Petitioner''s establishment, it will be open to the Petitioner to move Respondents 2 and 3, in which event, adequate and effective police protection will be afforded to the Petitioner.