Dismissed

T.M.Constructions v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC18 Feb 2020WP(C)/2343/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought police protection for a quarry partnership firm. The court directed police to protect the petitioner against obstruction when using mechanical devices but clarified that police should not interfere with the petitioner engaging registered human labor for loading and unloading works.

What did the court decide?

Police must protect petitioner against obstruction when using mechanical devices; however, police need not interfere with petitioner engaging registered human labor.

T.M.Constructions Vs the Station House Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 29TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.2343 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/s.T.M.CONSTRUCTIONS EZHUMATTOOR P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.K.A. THOMAS

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERUMBETTY POLICE STATION,

¶11

EZHUMATTOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA-689 586.

¶12

2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBETTUY, EZHUMATTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 586.

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA

¶14

4 CITU, EZHUMATTOOR UNIT, MALAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-689 586.

¶15

5 INTUC(I), EZHUMATTOOR UNIT, MALAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-689 586.

¶16

6 AITUC, EZHUMATTOOR UNIT, MALAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-689 586.

¶17

7 BMS,

¶18

EZHUMATTOOR UNIT, MALAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-689 586.

¶19

8 BMS,VAIPUR UNIT, VAIPUR, MALAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 586. R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SRI.PP THAJUDEEN, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) No.2343/2020

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 18^th day of February 2020

¶27

The petitioner is a partnership firm having quarrying lease. According to the petitioner, the loading and unloading works are carried

¶28

through mechanical devices and the petitioner does not engage any headload workers. The petitioner approached this Court for Police protection. This Court passed the following interim order on 28.01.2020.

¶29

“...In the light of the fact that the petitioner is having

¶30

all the permits and licences to operate the quarry, the Police shall afford necessary Police protection to the petitioner from any obstruction being caused by the party respondents and their associates. The petitioner is also free to use mechanical devices in the quarry for loading and unloading...”

¶31

Learned counsel for the party respondents would contend that

¶32

the petitioner, in the guise of using mechanical devices, is attempting to engage headload workers of their own and that caused objection on the side of party respondents.

¶33

Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the petitioner

¶34

uses one portion of the quarry with mechanical devices and other portion with human labour.

¶35

W.P.(C) No.2343/2020

¶36

¶37

Admittedly, the quarry is situated within the scheme covered area. The petitioner cannot engage any labour who is not having permanent registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act for loading and unloading works. If the petitioner wants to engage any labour, they have to secure it from the pool attached to the scheme.

¶38

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶39

The Police shall accord Police protection to the petitioner for loading and unloading works, if the petitioner is using mechanical devices for that purpose, and from any obstruction being caused by the party respondents. However, the Police need not interfere with the petitioner engaging any human labour for loading and unloading works without having registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act. The Police shall necessarily accord protection from any obstruction being caused to the ingress and egress to the quarry and transporting materials using mechanical devices.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

smp

¶44

W.P.(C) No.2343/2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GRANTING QUARRYING LEASE TO THE PETITIONER DT 10.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE ISSUED BY THE SEIAA,DT 16.9.2017.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION DATED 26.3.2018.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 20.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DT 13.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE EZHUMATTOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 DATED 24.01.2020 ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT R7(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE No.LR/301/2020 DTD.3.2.2020.

¶49

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶50

True Copy

¶51

P.S to Judge

¶52

smp

T.M.Constructions v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Constructions v. the Station House Officer

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

Rajeena Vs the District Police Chief (Rural)

William Mohandas Vs the District Police Chief

Deepak .L. Aswani Vs the District Registrar (Audit)

Changanakkattil Ali Vs the Tahsildar

Lissy Francis, Vs the District Police Chief

P.Shaji, Vs District Police Chief