Allowed

Aseela v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamang

Kerala HC6 Jun 2011WP(C)/13014/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition seeking police protection to remove rubber trees. With the respondent union not appearing, the Court made the interim order of 17.5.2011 absolute and discontinued proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the interim direction dated 17.5.2011 was made absolute. Further proceedings were discontinued.

Aseela Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamang — Landlord and Tenant | 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

MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 13014 of 2011(B)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

ASEELA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O SULAIMAN, ALUVILA CHERUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, NILAMEL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 535.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 534.

¶14

2. COMMUNIST MARXIST PARTY OF INDIA TRADE UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.I.T.U. OFFICE, BUNGLAMKUNNU, NILAMEL – 691 001, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BUNGLAMKUNNU, NILAMEL – 691 001, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

4. COMMUNIST MARXIST PARTY OF INDIA TRADE UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.I.T.U OFFICE, NILAMEL JUNCTION – 691 001, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

5. INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS, REPRESENTED SECRETARY, NILAMEL JUNCTION – 691 001. KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶18

6. THE LABOUR OFFICER, NILAMEL – 691 001, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(C). NO.13014/2011-B:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF TAX FOR 28.33 CENTS IN NILAMEL VILLAGE DTD 28/04/2011.

¶25

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 25/04/2011.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶31

WPC No.13014 of 2011 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th June, 2011

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Basant, J.

¶34

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondent No.1 to afford police protection for the petitioner to cut and remove the rubber trees in the petitioner's property without any obstruction from respondents 2 to 5. The 6^th respondent is the District Labour Officer.

¶35

Respondents 2 to 5 have been served. There is no representation for them. The same was the situation when the matter came up for hearing on the last date of posting, i.e. on 30^th May 2011.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the interim directions issued on 17.5.2011 may be made absolute and further proceedings closed, in as much as respondents 2 to 5 do not appear to be interested in resisting the prayer for police protection. When the matter came up for hearing on 17.5.2011 during the

¶37

WPC No.13014/2011 2

¶38

vacation, the Bench had issued interim directions to the first respondent,

¶39

“to afford adequate police protection for the petitioner to cut and remove the rubber trees in the petitioner's property without any obstruction from respondents 2 to 5”.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the said interim order is now made absolute. Respondents 2 to 5 have not entered appearance to raise any objection. The learned Government Pleader accepts that the course suggested by the petitioner can be followed.

¶41

We are satisfied in these circumstances that the interim directions can be made absolute and further proceedings can be discontinued.

¶42

In the result,

¶43

a) This writ petition is allowed. The interim direction dated 17.5.2011 extracted above is made absolute.

¶44

sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE

¶45

sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶46

css/ true copy

¶47

P.S.TO JUDGE

Aseela v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aseela v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamang

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

T.N.Vijayan and Another Vs Union of India

Shaji Mathew Vs the S.I.of Police, Kurathikad

Gtl Infrastructure Limited Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.N.MUTHUKRISHNAN,H.NO.4029,BANGALORE Vs C.G.Babu,Chamakkad House,Palakkad

Rathidevi Vs Saradamma

Muhammed Sali Vs District Superintendent of Police and