Disposed

Binu John v. the Superintendent of Police Kollam&Ors

Kerala HC20 Jul 2010WP(C)/21553/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking police protection was heard and disposed of. The court noted a settlement submission and directed the Sub-Inspector to provide protection against future obstruction while leaving the right to agitate claims intact.

What did the court decide?

Direction to third respondent to provide protection against obstruction if brought to notice, subject to any pending claims agitation.

Binu John Vs the Superintendent of Police… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 21553 of 2010(T)

PETITIONER(S):

BINU JOHN, PROPRIETOR, JOHN'S CASHEW COMPANY, MUKKOODU P.O., KARIPPURAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 503.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

¶14

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶16

THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM.

¶17

KERALA KASUANDI THOZHILALI CONGRESS I.N.T.U.C OFFICE, CONGRESS BHAVAN, KOLLAM-691 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SAHAJAN.

¶18

KOTTANKARA KASUANDI THOZHILALI COUNCIL, A.I.T.U.C. PERUMPUZHA P.O.691504, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MAJEED.

¶19

BHARATH MAZDOOR SANGH B.M.S. KUNDARA LOCAL COMMITTEE

¶20

5TH MILESTONE, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM-69014, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SALIM.

¶21

W.P.(C).NO.21553 OF 2010 T

¶22

KOTTANKARA KASUANDI THOZHILALI COUNCIL C.I.T.U. KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SURESH BABU.

¶23

KOTTANKARA KASUANDI THOZHILALI COUNCIL U.T.U.C., KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 503. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, GOPALAN.

¶24

RAMLATHU BEEVI, RASEENA MANZIL, NAALUMUKKU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOTTANKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 503.

¶25

THULASI, VELINTHARA VEEDU, VELAMKONAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O., PUNUKKONNUR CHERI, KOTTANKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 503.

¶26

SANTHAMMA, JAGADAMMA BHAVANAM, PUNUKKONNUR, ALUMOONDU PO, KOTTANKARA KOLLAM DISTIRCT-691 503.

¶27

RADHAMANI, AADIKKALAZHIKATHU, AMPAZHA VAYALIL, PERINADU PO, PANAYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 503.

¶28

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶29

ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) FOR R5 TO 13 SRI.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R5 TO 13

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.21553 OF 2010 T

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 12/11/2009 EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF THE CASHEW FACTORY BY THE PETITIONER.

¶34

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 18/5/2010 ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS 10 TO 13.

¶35

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/6/2010 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT 10 TO 13 BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.

¶36

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/5/2010 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM.

¶37

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6/7/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/7/2010 SUBMITTED BY LALITHABAI AMMA EMPLOYED IN THE GRADINRG SECTION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶40

NIL.

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

PS to Judge

¶43

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶44

W.P(C). NO. 21553 OF 2010 T

¶45

Dated this the 20^th July, 2010

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶48

This is a Writ Petition seeking police protection. Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 13 would submit that the matter has been settled, and that respondents 5 to 13 are not causing any obstruction to the running of the petitioner's Company. We record the said submission and we direct further that in case there is any obstruction by respondents 5 to 13 and which is brought to the notice of the third respondent, the third respondent will provide protection against any such obstruction. We also make it clear that this Judgment will not stand in the way of the party respondents agitating their claims before the appropriate Forum.

¶49

Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE

¶50

kbk.

¶51

// True Copy //

¶52

PS to Judge

Binu John v. the Superintendent of Police Kollam&Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu John v. the Superintendent of Police Kollam&Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Das Vs Circle Inspector of Police Poovar & Ors.

Balakrishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor

Kochurani Thomas Vs State of Kerala

S.Leeladevi Vs C.I of Police

Moideen Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

Khuvathul Islam Mahallu Committee Vs the State of Kerala and Others