Disposed

Sunny.C.v v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2021WP(C)/961/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court in a public interest writ petition addressed a plea for police protection for a weigh bridge owner and his workers. Absent evidence of immediate threat despite union opposition, the Court did not grant specific protection orders but accepted undertakings from respondents not to interfere, directing the petitioner to approach police if threats arise later.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of recording undertaking by respondents not to obstruct; petitioner directed to approach SHO for protection if threats arise.

Sunny.C.v Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.961 OF 2021(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNNY.C.V AGED 50 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, CHALUNILATHIL HOUSE, KAYANAD KARA, PIRAMADAM P.O, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686667.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB E SIMON SRI.N.R.RAJESH SMT.ATHIRA K.C.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001,

¶11

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, RAMAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686663,

¶12

3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 686661.

¶13

4 RAJU KOLAPPARAYIL HOUSE, PIRAMADAM P.O, PAMBAKKUDA NORTH, SECRETARY, INTUC TIMBER WORKERS UNION, PAMBAKKUDA, PIN - 686667.

WP(C)No.961 of 2021

5 MOHANAN

S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THADATHIL HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, SECRETARY CITU TIMBER WORKERS UNION, PAMBAKKUDA, PIN - 686667.

¶18

6 BENNY VETTICHOTTIL HOUSE, PIRAMADAM P.O, PAMBAKKUDA, SECRETARY, KTUC, TIMBER WORKERS UNION, PAMBAKKUDA, PIN - 686667.

¶19

7 KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682018.

¶20

R4-6 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM) SR.GP - SMT. AMMINIKUTTY

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.961 of 2021

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner of a weigh bridge, namely, Chalunilam Weigh Bridge, functioning at Chettikandamin Memmury Village in building No.3/5A of Pambakkuda Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to afford him adequate police protection for the functioning of weigh bridge and also to the life of the petitioner and the persons employed in the weigh bridge.

¶26

On 14.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

¶27

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the 7^th respondent. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 6, returnable by 21.01.2021. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 6, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶30

¶31

WP(C)No.961 of 2021

¶32

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 7^th respondent.

¶33

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),

¶34

¶35

WP(C)No.961 of 2021

¶36

the Police Officers shall enforce the law impartially; and as per clause (b), the Police Officers shall protect the life, liberty, property, human rights and dignity of all persons in accordance with the law.

¶37

Lord Denning in 'The Due Process of law' [First Indian Reprint 1993, Page 102] has described the role of the Police thus;

¶38

"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.

¶39

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."

¶40

In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary

¶41

[(2014) 2 SCC 532] the Apex Court held that, one of the

¶42

responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the

¶43

¶44

WP(C)No.961 of 2021

¶45

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] .

¶46

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

¶47

by the strike weapon and cannot then sequeal or wail and complain of loss of profits or other ill-effects but must negotiate

¶48

¶49

WP(C)No.961 of 2021

¶50

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 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.

¶51

In Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998

¶52

(2) KLT 732] , in the context of the Section 21 of of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and Rule 15 of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, which deals with settlement of disputes, a Full Bench of this Court held that, the Act and the Rules provide for a machinery for settlement of disputes between the employer

¶53

¶54

¶55

and the worker. In the normal course, the dispute between the employer and the headload workers employed by him are to be settled in accordance with the machinery thus provided under the Statute, just like in the case of any other labour dispute being settled in accordance with the provisions contained under the relevant Statutes. But the fact that there is a machinery provided under the Act to settle the disputes between the parties cannot stand in the way of the employer seeking police protection when there is a law and order problem. When such an employer approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of person and property of the employer as well as willing workers, this Court will be justified in granting direction to the police to give protection, if circumstances so warrant. One such consideration can be irreparable injury that would be suffered by the employer and/or the willing workers. There may be other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of a particular case.

¶56

The report of the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer is placed on record along with a memo filed by the learned Senior

¶57

¶58

¶59

Government Pleader dated 19.01.2021. In the report filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is stated that, at present there is no threat to law and order in the locality.

¶60

During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 is that they have no intention to interfere with the functioning of weigh bridge run by the petitioner.

¶61

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of recording the undertaking given by respondents 4 to 7 that they have no intention to cause any obstruction to the functioning of the weigh bridge run by the petitioner. In case there is any threat to law and order in connection with the functioning of weigh bridge run by the petitioner, from the side of respondents 4 to 7 and their supporters, the petitioner shall approach the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer with a request for police protection, which shall be deal with appropriately by the said respondent, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to above and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to

supra.

It is made clear that this judgment is confined to the functioning of weigh bridge run by the petitioner where empty

¶66

goods vehicles and such vehicles loaded with goods are weighed.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶74

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE NUMBER 516/2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY DATED 06.10.2020.

¶75

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO. 668/2020 DATED 16.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE PAMBAKKUDA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶76

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.12.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 ALONG WITH ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT.

¶77

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO.3, ALONG WITH ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT.

¶78

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶79

TRUE COPY

¶80

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sunny.C.v v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny.C.v 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saneesh V.T. Vs the Executive Engineer

Anilkumar J. Vs District Police Chief

Anil v. a. Vs the Tahsildar (Lr)

P.N.Shivaraman Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Balan Vs Land Tribunal, (Land Reforms)

Worldwide Knowledge Foundation Vs Council of Architecture