Disposed

Dr. Jaison v. the District Police Chief and Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021WP(C)/1510/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by the Chief Medical Officer of an Eye Clinic seeking police protection against trade union agitators. The Court issued directions to the Station House Officer to ensure safety, prevent obstruction of hospital access, and ban loudspeaker usage, while mandating cooperation with pending conciliation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directions to SHO to provide police protection, prevent obstruction of hospital access, and stop loudspeaker usage, ensuring safety of staff, patients, and bystanders.

Dr. Jaison Vs the District Police Chief and… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR. JAISON AGED 54 YEARS

¶8

S/O. JAYARAMAN, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, JYOTHIS EYE CARE, PALLIKKUNNU - 670 004, RESIDING AT 'LIFE', CHETTIPEEDIKA, KANNUR - 670 004.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR - 670 002.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶13

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 002.

¶14

4 THE KANNUR JILLA VANIJYA VYAVASAYA MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS) MAZDOOR BHAVAN, NEAR DELSE GARMENTS, JOHN MILL ROAD, THULICHERI, KANNUR - 670 002.

¶15

5 RAJEESH K. S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, 'SURABHI', NEAR RAILWAY CUTTING, P. O. VALAPATANAM - 670 010, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

-2-

¶17

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶18

6 DHANASREE V. 'ANUGRAH', KAYARALAM MOTTA, RAYARALAM P. O. - 670 602, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶19

7 NIMISHA T. P. PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, AYYOOR VAYAL, AZHIKODE SOUTH, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 009.

¶20

8 PRASANNAKUMARI THOLICHI QUARTERS, NEAR RAILWAY CUTTING, P. O. VALAPATTANAM - 670 010, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶21

9 SUFINA PONMUDIYAN HOUSE, KOTTALI P. O. - 670 005, KANNUR DISTRICT, PH - 9847700177.

¶22

10 SAPNA SAVIDHAM, RAMATHERU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 001., PH - 9747534407.

¶23

11 SHEEBA ARAVANA VALAPPIL, ONAPARAMBE, PUZHATHI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 001., PH - 9656533953.

¶24

12 MITHUN B. BADI HOUSE, THERU, KANNADIPARAMBA - 670 604., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶25

13 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR THAVAKKARA, KANNUR - 670 002. R4-12 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN R1-3 BY SRI.SUNILNATH N B, GOVT.PLEADER

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR

¶27

ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

-3-

¶29

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner, who is the Chief Medical officer of Jyothis Eye Care Clinic, functioning in Pallikkunnu, Kannur District within the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to grant sufficient and adequate police protection to the petitioner to run Jyothis Eye Clinic on the strength of Ext.P1 license issued by Kannur Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that respondents 1 to 3 are duty bound to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioner to conduct the Eye Clinic, as the same is being conducted strictly in adherence to the laws governing the field and that, the agitation being conducted by respondents 4 to 12 is impermissible, pending conciliation before the District Labour Officer, Kannur. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 4^th respondent Union and respondents 5 to 12 are staging protest in front of the petitioner's Eye Clinic, in connection with disengagement of respondents 5 to 12, who are causing obstruction to the smooth functioning of the Eye Clinic.

¶32

-4-

¶33

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶34

On 20.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer.

¶35

On 21.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3 and 13. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 12, returnable by 28.01.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer and file a statement. On 21.01.2021, this Court granted an interim order directing the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality at the instance of respondents 4 to 12 or their supporters. The 3^rd respondent was also directed to ensure that there is no obstruction to free ingress and egress to the hospital, on account of the agitation by respondents 4 to 12, in front of the hospital.

¶36

The above interim order was followed by the order dated 28.01.2021, which reads thus;

¶37

“The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12 enters appearance through Advocate Rajesh Sukumaran and

¶38

-5-

¶39

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶40

seeks ten days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶41

On 21.01.2021, this Court passed an interim order directing the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 4 to 12 or their supporters. The 3^rd respondent was also directed to ensure that there is no obstruction to free ingress and egress to the hospital, on account of the agitation conducted by respondents 4 to 12 in front of the hospital.

¶42

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now respondents 4 to 12 are conducting agitation inside the premises of the hospital and they have also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences.

¶43

The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12 seeks time to get instructions.

¶44

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, would submit that respondents 4 to 12 are conducting agitation, inside the premises of the hospital, however, without causing any obstruction to free ingress and egress.

¶45

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court deem it appropriate to pass an interim order directing the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer to give adequate and sufficient protection to the life of the petitioner,

¶46

-6-

¶47

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶48

the doctors, staff and employees of Jyothis Eye Care Clinic and also the patients and bystanders, from any threat from the side of respondents 4 to 12 and their supporters. The 3^rd respondent shall prevent respondents 4 to 12 and their supporters from conducting agitation within the premises of the hospital. Any agitation conducted outside the hospital shall be without causing any inconvenience whatsoever to the patients, doctors, etc. in the hospital. Respondents 4 to 12 shall also not be permitted to cause any obstruction whatsoever to free ingress and egress to the hospital.

¶49

The counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer shall be placed on record before the next posting date.”

¶50

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, wherein it is stated that the petitioner denied employment to respondents 5 to 12 after Covid-19 lockdown. Based on the complaint made before the District Labour Officer, conciliation proceedings are pending before the Assistant Labour Officer, Grade-I, Kannur. Since there was no settlement, respondents 4 to 12 have no option other than to stage protest.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶52

-7-

¶53

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶54

learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 13 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12.

¶55

The Kerala Police Act, 2011 is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the Police Force in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Chapter II of the Act deals with duties and functions of Police. Section 3 of the Act deals with general duties of Police. As per Section 3, the Police, as a service functioning category among the people as part of the administrative system shall, subject to the Constitution of India and the laws enacted thereunder, strive in accordance with the law, to ensure that all persons enjoy the freedoms and rights available under the law by ensuring peace and order, integrity of the nation, security of the State and protection of human rights. Section 4 of the Act deals with functions of Police. As per Section 4, the Police Officers shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, perform the functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 4. As per clause (a), the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property,

¶56

-8-

¶57

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶58

human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law.

¶59

Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First

¶60

Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

¶61

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, welltrained and well-disciplined force or police whom it can trust, and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice.

¶62

The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants."

¶63

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶64

[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to the book. The Apex Court reiterated the said principle in Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of

¶65

-9-

¶66

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶67

Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470] .

¶68

In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] the Apex Court held that, the right to unionise, the right to strike as part of collective bargaining and subject to the legality and humanity of the situation, the right of the weaker group viz. labour, to pressure the stronger party viz. capital, to negotiate and render justice, are processes recognised by industrial jurisprudence and supported by Social Justice. While society itself, in its basic needs of existence, may not be held to ransom in the name of the right to bargain and strikers must obey civilised norms in the battle and not be vulgar or violent hoodlums industry, represented by intransigent Managements, may well be made to reel into reason by the strike weapon and cannot then sequeal or wail and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate or get a reference made. The broad basis is that workers are weaker although they are the producers and their struggle to better their lot has the sanction of the rule of law. Unions and strikers are no more conspiracies than professions and political parties, are, and being far weaker, need succour. Part IV of the

¶69

-10-

¶70

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶71

Constitution, read with Article 19, sows the seed of this burgeoning jurisprudence. The Gandhian quote at the beginning of the judgment [Para.5 @ Page 603 SCC] sets the tone of economic equity in industry. Of course, adventurist, extremist, extraneously inspired and puerile strike, absurdly insane persistence and violent or scorched earth policies boomerang and are anathema for the law. Within these parameters the right to strike is integral to collective bargaining.

¶72

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that Crime No.168/2021 of Kannur Town Police Station has already been registered, in connection with the agitation in front of the petitioner's Eye Clinic on 26.02.2021. The learned counsel would also submit that in the agitation, loudspeakers are being used, which is causing annoyance to the patients.

¶73

The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 12 would submit that the members of the 4^th respondent union or respondents 5 to 12 have absolutely no intention to take law into their own hands. Conciliation proceedings are pending before the 13^th respondent District Labour Officer.

¶74

-11-

¶75

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶76

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶77

(i) The 3^rd respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 4 to 12 and their supporters, in connection with the agitation/protest made by them in front of Jyothis Eye Care Clinic.

¶78

(ii) In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner, Doctors, staff, workers, patients, etc., or any obstruction to free ingress and egress to the Jyothis Eye Care Clinic from the side of respondents 4 to 12 and their supporters, the petitioner shall move the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection.

¶79

(iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent shall take necessary action on that request, without any delay, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid

¶80

-12-

¶81

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶82

down in the decisions referred to supra.

¶83

(iv) The 3^rd respondent Station House Officer shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no noise pollution, by the use of loudspeakers in front of Jyothis Eye Care Clinic in connection with the agitation/protest conducted by respondents 4 to 12 and their supporters.

¶84

(v) Both parties shall co-operate with the conciliation proceedings pending before the 13^th respondent District Labour Officer.

¶85

No order as to costs.

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶88

AV/9/3

¶89

-13-

¶90

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶91

APPENDIX

¶92

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶93

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATED 09.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE STRIKE NOTICE DATED 11.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.12.2020 MADE BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.12.2020 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.12.2020 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.01.2020 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE PALMFLET.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DATED 14.01.2021.

¶94

-14-

¶95

WP(C).No.1510 OF 2021(K)

¶96

EXHIBIT P12 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER DATED 16.01.2021. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.01.2021 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.

Dr. Jaison v. the District Police Chief and Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Jaison v. the District Police Chief and Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayalakshmi, Vs the Station House Officer

Abdul Kalam Vs State of Kerala

Abdulraheem Vs Smt.Dr.Priya Mohan

Mathew Joseph Vs the Commissioner of Police

Bushrabeevi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs Land Tribunal, (Land Reforms)