Disposed

Tower Vision India Private Limited v. the Commissioner of Police (Kochi City)

Kerala HC3 Mar 2021WP(C)/3208/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection against union protests by a telecom tower company. The court directed the Station House Officer to maintain law and order and to act swiftly on any request for protection without blocking peaceful demonstrations.

What did the court decide?

, The 2nd respondent shall maintain law and order and act on protection requests without delay; peaceful protests without obstruction are permitted.

Tower Vision India Private Limited Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942 W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021(A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

M/S. TOWER VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED BUILDING NO.32/ 1663 B2, 2ND FLOOR, BGG ESTATE, NH-BYPASS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P. O, COCHIN - 682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, RASHY S. INDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. V. SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR, VATTAMALA ESTATE, K.P. VALLOM ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P. O. COCHIN - 682 020.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI. P. SATHISAN SMT. DONA AUGUSTINE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (KOCHI CITY) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ABDUL KALAM MARG, MARINE DRIVE P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 011. 2 TH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM, CIVIL STATION ROAD, OPPOSITE BUS STOP, PALARIVATTOM JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM P. O. ERNAKULAM - 682 025. 3 DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, CTSD COMPLEX, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA P. O, ERNAKULAM - 682 020,

¶10

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶11

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIRECTOR GENERAL (TECHNOLOGY), KERALA LSA.

¶13

4 M/S. S.H. INFRANET MANAGEMENT SOLUTION S(LLP), 46/2678 B3, NANDANAM BUILDING, KANIYAPPILLY ROAD, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, VENNALA P. O. PIN - 682 028, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶14

5 KERALA STATE MOBILE TOWER WORKERS UNION (AITUC), P.S SMARAKAM, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM PALACE P.O. PIN - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

6 WORKING PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE MOBILE TOWER WORKERS UNION (AITUC), P.S. SMARAKAM, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM PALACE P. O. PIN - 695 004.

¶16

7 DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OLIMUGHAL, VAYU SENA ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O. VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, KERALA - 682 021. 8 THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), OLIMUGHAL, VAYU SENA ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P. O. VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, KERALA - 682 021.

¶17

*** BHARATHIYA PRIVATE TELECOM MAZDOOR SANGH(BPTMS) ADDL. BMS KERALA, BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGH, R9 MARAYIL LINE, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI - 19 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.**

¶18

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

*ADDL. R9 IS IMPLEADED IN THE WP(C) AS PER ORDER DATED 18-02-2021 IN IA NO.1/21 IN WP(C)3208/2021.

¶21

SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL R4 BY ADV. SMT.RAAGA R.RAMALAKSHMI R7-8 BY SRI.R.PRASANTH KUMAR, CGC R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R9 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR R9 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY R9 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA R9 BY ADV. SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner, a Telecom infrastructure provider to various telecom service providers across Kerala, holding Ext.P1 Registration Certificate dated 22.06.2006 issued by the Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to extend adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner company, its workers, men or agents for the functioning and operation of its office at Building No.32/1663 B2, 2^nd Floor, BCG Estate, NH-Bypass Road, Palarivattom P.O, Cochin. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that any obstruction caused to petitioner company by respondents 5 and 6 and its members and any strike without compliance of Section 22 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as illegal;

¶27

and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to comply with Exhibit P9 communication dated 24.03.2020 issued by 3^rd respondent with immediate effect.

¶28

On 09.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on

¶29

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

admission for respondents 1, 2 and 7. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 6, returnable by 16.02.2021. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India took notice on admission for respondents 3 and 8. This Court passed an interim order directing the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer to take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of respondents 5 and 6 and their members/supporters.

¶32

On 18.02.2021, this Court allowed I.A. No.1 of 2021

¶33

filed by the petitioner seeking an order to implead Bharathiya Private Telecom Mazdoor Sangh (BPTMS), Kochi as additional 9^th respondent. Thereafter, I.A. No.4 of 2021 filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the writ petition was also allowed, thereby adding paragraph 11A after paragraph 11 and also additional relief No.ii(a) seeking a writ of mandamus declaring any obstruction caused to petitioner company by additional 9^th respondent and its members and any strike without compliance of Section 22 of Industrial Disputes Act as illegal.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the

¶35

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 3,

¶38

7 and 8 and also the learned counsel for the 9^th respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 4, 5 and 6.

¶39

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,

¶40

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

"In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained 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.

¶46

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."

¶47

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶48

[(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 Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 470] .

¶49

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶50

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶52

after the interim order of this Court dated 09.02.2021, the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer has taken necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, in connection with the protest/agitation by the striking employees.

¶53

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from respondents 1 and 2, w ould submit that, at present, there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of the striking employees.

¶54

The learned counsel for the 9^th respondent Union would submit that the employees of the said union are conducting only peaceful protest/agitation and they have absolutely no intention to take law into their own hands.

¶55

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

¶56

(i) The 2^nd respondent Station House Officer shall take necessary steps to ensure that there is no threat to law and order in the locality, at the instance of the employees, who are members of respondents 5, 6 and

¶57

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶58

¶59

additional 9^th respondent Unions.

¶60

(ii) In case there is any threat to law and order in the locality or any threat to the life of the staff, employees/workers of the petitioner, from the side of the employees, who are members of respondents 5, 6 and additional 9^th respondent unions, the petitioner shall move the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer with a request for Police protection.

¶61

(iii) In case any such request for Police protection is made by the petitioner, the 2^nd 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 down in the decisions referred to supra.

¶62

(iv) This judgment will not stand in the way of the employees, who are members of respondents 5, 6 and additional 9^th respondent from staging peaceful protest/agitation, in a democratic manner, without causing any obstruction whatsoever to free ingress and egress to the petitioner establishment.

¶63

No order as to costs.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶66

SPR

¶67

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶68

¶69

APPENDIX

¶70

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 22.06.2006.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER OF MANAGER LEGAL DATED 19.11.2020 AND RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BOARD RESOLUTION.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF TH OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 (a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM TO EXT P3 DATED 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BANNER TIED IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CONCILIATION PETITION FILED BY THE ROYAL COMMON PROTECTION GROUP BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 DATED 27.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P6 (a)	TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 3.2.2021
EXHIBIT P6 (b)	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT DISCUSSION HELD ON 03.02.2021 BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 (c)	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DHARNA AND PICKETING OF UNION AND ITS MEMBERS.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2021

¶72

W.P(C).No.3208 OF 2021

¶73

¶74

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2021. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2020. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING BEFORE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2021.

¶75

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Tower Vision India Private Limited v. the Commissioner of Police (Kochi City)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tower Vision India Private Limited v. the Commissioner of Police (Kochi City)

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

Haridas Nanji and Sons Vs State of Kerala

S Suhail.T Vs the District Police Chief

K.K.Abdul Gafoor Vs the District Police Chief

Sheeba Suresh, Vs District Collector

M/S.Vishwas Chits & Investments (P) Limited (in Liquidation) Vs Sri.Santhosh.a.K.

Manappuram Home Finance Limited Vs Rajesh N.P.