Allowed

K.Gurudasan v. Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Kerala HC2 Jun 2011WP(C)/11345/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition seeking police protection for the petitioner to carry out rubber tree slaughter tapping and transportation. The court directed police respondents to offer protection against any obstruction raised by trade unions, finding no need to delve into the controversy due to lack of opposition.

What did the court decide?

Police protection shall be offered to the petitioner by respondents 1 & 2 to get the work of slaughter tapping and loading of rubber trees done against any objection raised by respondents 4 & 5.

K.Gurudasan Vs Sub Inspector of Police and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 11345 of 2011(P)

PETITIONER:

K.GURUDASAN, SOMYA NIVAS, AALUMOODU, KARINGANNOOR P.O., VELIANALLOOR, KORRARAKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM

¶11

MR.GEORGE BRISTON MS.C.A.RAKHI ANTONY MS.C.A.SEENA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

K.G.VISWANADHAN, INTUC CONVENER, VELLINALLOOR, VISWA NIVAS, KAALAVAYAL, OYOOR P.O.

¶18

S.NASAR, CONVENER, CITUC, MADATHIL VEEDU ROADVILA, CHERIAYA VELINALOOR P.O., VELINALOOR VILLAGE.

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.C.M.CHARISMA FOR R1 TO R3.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 11345 of 2011(P)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1: TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF THE PROPERTY TAX BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.1.2011.

¶25

EXT.P2: COMPLAINT DATED 22.2.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 ON 2.3.2011. EXT.P3: RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R1 DATED 2.3.2011.

¶26

EXT.P4: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICR SECRETARY, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE DATED 11.3.2011.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶28

// TRUE COPY //

¶29

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶30

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶31

W.P.(C).No.11345 Of 2011

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2011.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Basant, J.

¶35

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 & 2, police officials under the third respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioner in the work of slaughter tapping of rubber trees against objections/obstructions that is raised by respondents 4 & 5 trade unions.

¶36

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to

¶37

get the work of slaughter tapping and transportation of the rubber trees done by employing his workers. Respondents 4 & 5 have no right to obstruct such work. They are illegally raising obstructions. Appropriate directions may be issued, it is prayed.

¶38

Respondents have been served. There is no appearance for respondents 4 & 5. Even in the absence of opposition from respondents 4 & 5, we directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions and submit whether the area is a scheme covered area. The learned Government Pleader

¶39

::2::

¶40

W.P.(C).No.11345 Of 2011

¶41

submits (and Ext.P4 certificate has subsequently produced by the petitioner to confirm that fact) that the area is not a scheme covered area.

¶42

We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for an order of police protection. In the absence of opposition from any of the parties, it is not necessary for us to delve deeper into the controversy.

¶43

In the result, the petition is allowed. Police protection shall be offered to the petitioner by respondents 1 & 2 to get the work of slaughter tapping and loading of rubber trees done against any objection that is raised by respondents 4 & 5.

¶44

R.BASANT, JUDGE.

¶45

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶46

bkn/-

K.Gurudasan v. Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gurudasan v. Sub Inspector of Police and Others

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

Tata Motors Finance Limited Vs Sri.Nazeer M. and Another

Mohammed Mamouth Matwally Ghali Vs Kerala Automobils Ltd.

Praveena Vs Pradeepan

Sri.Jimmy Jose Vs the Official Liquidator

Thankamma Narayanan @ Kutta Chirutha Vs the Circle Inspector of Police & Ors.

Usha Devadas Vs the Circle Inspector of Police