Disposed

Boban P.V. v. Secretary, Department of Home Affairs

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016WP(C)/639/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the respondents for failing to provide police protection against alleged obstruction of head load work by local union leaders. The court noted that no cognizable offence was evident and thus closed the petition without issuing a writ. Petitioners were advised to file a complaint to the police if an offence were attempted or committed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Boban P.V. Vs Secretary, Department of Home Affairs — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 639 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. BOBAN P.V., S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, PAZHAMPILLI VEEDU, PANAYIKULAM, ALUVA.

¶8

2. BABU, S/O.HAMSA, AGED 53 YEARS, PATTAMPARAMB HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM, ALUVA.

¶9

3. RASHEED, S/O.HAMSA, AGED 50 YEARS, PATTAMPARAMB HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM, ALUVA.

¶10

4. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.MEETHEEN, AGED 58 YEARS, ANNACHI PARAMB HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM, ALUVA.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ,

¶12

SRI.V.A.AJMAL, SRI.K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER, SRI.K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED.

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶15

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM RURAL - 683 101.

¶16

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 524.

¶17

4. P.K. SURESH BABU, SECRETARY, INTUC, PANAYIKULAM AREA, RESIDING AT POOVATHINGAL PARAMB, PANAYIKULAM P.O., ALANGAD - 683 511.

¶18

WP(C).No. 639 of 2016 (D)

¶19

5. SIRAJ, SECRETARY, CITU, PANAYIKULAM AREA, RESIDING AT MANAKALASHERI HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM P.O., ALUVA - 683 511.

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

rs.

¶23

WP(C).No. 639 of 2016 (D)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶26

P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16.12.2015 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.

¶27

P1(A) - TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1.

¶28

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DTD. 31.12.2015 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM.

¶29

P2(A) - TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶35

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 639 of 2016

¶37

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶38

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Notice to the party respondents is not necessary in view of the order being passed.

¶42

This writ petition has been filed seeking police protection, compelling respondents 2 and 3 to provide protection against the high handed activities of respondents 4 and 5. Petitioners' case is that, they are head load workers who had obtained identity cards under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978. There is dispute between the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5, who are local leaders of the Union. Petitioners' case is that, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 obstruction is being caused in carrying out the head load work. Petitioners filed Ext.P2 complaint dated 31.12.2015 before the third respondent. A perusal of the complaint as well as the averments in the writ petition indicate that the matter was taken before the District Labour Officer and certain order has been passed. Be that as it may, we do not find any offence on which police can take any action.

¶43

W.P.C. No.639 of 2016

¶44

-2-

¶45

In such circumstance, we only observe that in the event of any offence being attempted or committed against the petitioners, it will be open for the petitioners to file a complaint before the police, which will be looked into.

¶46

With the above observations, this writ petition is closed.

¶47

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

A.M. SHAFFIQUE,

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

kp/-7.01.16

Boban P.V. v. Secretary, Department of Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Boban P.V. v. Secretary, Department of Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansu Joseph Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

John Koshy Vs Kerala State Housing Board

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sherin P G

Sojan George Vs Siji

Nandakumar Vs P.S. Krishna Pillai

Manmith T.N. Vs the Chief Manager