Dismissed

Sheela S. v. the Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC10 Apr 2013WP(C)/8311/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, tea shop owners whose shop was allegedly destroyed and displaced by trade unions, sought police protection and restoration of their business site. The court held that without an occupation certificate for the shop, the petitioners failed to establish a legal right to the specific site, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed by declining jurisdiction as the petitioners failed to establish a legal right to the specific site.

Sheela S. Vs the Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶6

WP(C).No. 8311 of 2013 (L)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. SHEELA .S.,

¶9

W/O.MADHU, MADHU NIVAS, T.C.1729/3(1),

¶10

KULATHOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

2. MADHU C.G,

¶12

S/O.GANGADHARAN, MADHU NIVAS, T.C.1729/3(1),

¶13

KULATHOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.(KALLARAMOOLA).

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695 014.

¶17

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 582.

¶18

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, KAZHAKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 014.

¶19

4. THE CONVENOR, I.N.T.U.C., MANVILA, KULATHOOR, KAZHAKOOTAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695 014

¶20

5. THE CONVENOR,

¶21

CENTRAL INDIA TRADE UNION (C.I.T.U.), MANVILA, KULATHOOR, KAZHAKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -695 014.

¶22

Prv.

¶23

W.P.(C).NO.8311/2013-L:

¶24

6. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 695 001.

¶25

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER, R6 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, S.C.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Prv.

¶28

W.P.(C). NO.8311/2013-L:

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16.11.1998.
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TEMPORARY SHED ERECTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN THE PLACE OF THE TEA SHOP OF THE PETITIONER AND ALSO THE DISPLACEMENT OF PETITIONER'S TEA SHOP.
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14/2/2013 AND RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23/2/2013 FILED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13/2013 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL.
EXHIBIT-P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Prv.

K. M. JOSEPH & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶37

---------------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO. 8311 OF 2013 L

¶38

Dated this the 10th April, 2013

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶41

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶42

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and also for restoring their teashop in the original place where the respondents 4 and 6 now erected temporary shelter.

¶43

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to register a crime against respondents 4 and 5 on the basis of Ext.P3 complaint filed by the 2^nd petitioner.”

¶44

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:

¶45

Petitioners are husband and wife. They are running a teashop

¶46

(on wheels) at Manvila Junction, Kulathoor, Kazhakoottam from

¶47

1998 onwards. The said teashop is situated in the Manvila junction

¶48

WP(C).NO.8311/13L

¶49

¶50

itself adjacent to the statue of Swamy Sree Narayana Guru. The said teashop is numbered by the 6^th respondent Corporation. Before 1998, the said teashop was run by the grand-father of the 1^st petitioner. He is no more. The 4^th respondent and union had a shelter just opposite side of the petitioners' shop. When the widening of the road commenced, their shelter has been taken away. On 8/2/2013, while the petitioners went to their house for lunch after closing the tea shop, the members of respondents 4 and 5 union, removed the tea shop of the petitioners from the original place and thrown the same away causing damage. Thereafter, they erected temporary shed in the place, where the petitioners were running their teashop. Petitioners filed complaint before respondents 2 and 3. No action has been taken. Now, the members of respondent unions are threatening the petitioners that if they make any attempt to restore the tea shop, then they will take the life of the petitioners. Hence this Writ Petition.

¶51

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent Corporation.

¶52

WP(C).NO.8311/13L

¶53

¶54

Petitioners are apparently laying store by Ext.P6. There is

¶55

a T.C.number also given. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the T.C.number relates to the hand cart. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it relates to that. But, when we asked him whether the petitioners can insist that they should do the business at the very site where, according to them, they were doing earlier, he is not able to say so. In such circumstances, we feel that the petitioners have not established any legal right as claimed by them. Accordingly, we decline jurisdiction and dismiss the Writ Petition.

Sd/=

K. M. JOSEPH

JUDGE

Sd/= K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶60

kbk.

¶61

//True Copy//

Sheela S. v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela S. v. the Commissioner of Police

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

Moidu Vs Abdu Haji

K.G.Sunil Vs General Manager, Sbt

Nadiya Sulekha Vs State of Kerala

Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Mirshan Khan Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Nazar Vs Superintendent of Police