Disposed

Jayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2014WP(C)/12067/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed seeking police protection to construct a residential building against local workers' demands for loading/unloading work or fees. The Court held that registered local workers have no right to prevent construction by the owner and made an interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by making the interim order taxing obstruction and protecting construction absolute.

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/14TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 12067 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JAYAKUMAR,

¶8

S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, TRA-18A, PANAMUKKATHU HOUSE, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR).

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶13

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶14

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶15

5. RAJENDRAN PILLAI , DISTRICT SECRETARY, BHARATHEEYA HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, BHARATHEEYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), KOLLAM-691 012.

¶16

6. SIVAKUMAR, CONVENOR, BHARATHEEYA HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, BHARATHEEYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), MOOLANKARA UNIT, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶17

7. NEITHIL VINCENT, DISTRICT SECRETARY, UNITED TRADE UNION COUNCIL (UTUC-B), HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶18

WP(C).No. 12067 of 2012 (G)

¶19

8. SETHU, CONVENOR, UNITED TRADE UNION COUNCIL (UTUC-B), HEAD LOAD & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, MOOLANKARA UNIT, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶20

ADDITIONAL 9TH RESPONDENT

¶21

9. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶22

R1 TO R4 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER MR.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE. R5 TO R8 BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN, SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA. ADDL. R9 BY ADVS. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, SRI.AJITH PRAKASH, SC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

rs.

¶25

WP(C).No. 12067 of 2012 (G)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶28

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22/05/2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH A COPY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22/05/2012.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/10/2011 IN WP(C).NO. 27368/2011.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SERVICES ISSUED BY THE MP MARITIME SERVICES, SINGAPORE.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KOLLAM CORPORATION WITH THE PLAN.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶30

EXT.R5A	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18/05/2012 FOR Rs.5,00/-.
EXT.R5B	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18/05/2012 FOR Rs.750/-.
EXT.R5C	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18/05/2012 FOR Rs.825/-.
EXT.R5D	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18/05/2012 FOR Rs.5,00/-.
EXT.R5E	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21/05/2012 FOR Rs.250/-.
EXT.R5F	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27/05/2012 FOR Rs.150/-.
EXT.R5G	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29/05/2012 FOR Rs.370/-.
EXT.R5H	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30/05/2012 FOR Rs.240/-.
EXT.R5I	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30/05/2012 FOR Rs.1,175/-.
EXT.R5J	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31/05/2012 FOR Rs.5,00/-.
EXT.R5K	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01/06/2012 FOR Rs.750/-.
EXT.R5L	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01/06/2012 FOR Rs.375/-.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

**MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.12067 of 2012

¶35

Dated this the 5^th day of March 2014

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

SHAFFIQUE,J

¶38

This writ petition is filed seeking police protection for constructing a residential building.

¶39

The complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 5 to 8 are demanding loading and unloading work at the site or to pay ‘nokkukooli’. An interim order had already been passed by this Court on 08/06/2012 directing respondents 3 and 4 to remove any obstruction caused by respondents 5 to

¶40

Further interim orders were also granted giving necessary protection for carrying out the work by the petitioner by his own workers.

¶41

As far as construction of residential building is concerned, even if the area is a scheme covered area, the registered loading and unloading workers in the locality

¶42

W.P.C.No.12067/2012

¶43

¶44

have no right to prevent construction by the owner of the building.

¶45

In that view of the matter, we do not think that any further directions are required to be passed in this case. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of making the interim order absolute.

¶46

(sd/-)

¶47

(MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶48

(sd/-)

¶49

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶50

jsr 05/03/2014

¶51

W.P.C.No.12067/2012 3

¶52

W.P.C.No.12067/2012 4

Jayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar v. State of Kerala

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

Dandapani Vs K.D.Seethikumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax -I,Kochi Vs M/S.Abad Constructions Pvt.Ltd.

Semeena Aneesh Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mohammed Siyaad Vs State of Kerala

Murukan Vs District Collector

Muraleedharan.M.K. Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, Attingal