The High Court of Kerala heard a writ petition seeking police protection for a rickshaw driver threatened by a competitor. After the Government Pleader for the first respondent denied the alleged incident, the Court closed the writ petition and dismissed pending applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 14306 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
ANEESH SUKUMARAN AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARAN, KULANGARAYIL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU KARA, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 565
BY ADV PADAYATTEE YELDO
RESPONDENT/S:
2 SRI SAJEEV AGED 40 YEARS S/O. SASI, PLAPLASSERY HOUSE, KURISSUPARA KARA, KALLAR VATTIYAR P.O, PIN 685 565
BY ADV SRI.S.JIJI
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SRI JUSTIN JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14306 OF 2020
2
J U D G M E N T
1. Petitioner is stated to have approached
this Court with the following reliefs:
“a. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction commanding and directing the first respondent to provide adequate and effective protection to the life and property of the petitioner against illegal threat; and or
b. To issue Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction commanding and directing the first respondent to take proper, adequate and effective steps and actions to protect right of the petitioner for carrying on business; and or
c. To issue such other further relief, order, command or other direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case and for the ends of justice.”
petition are that, petitioner is an economically poor literate man holding driving licence, Ext.P1, to drive autorickshaw and acts as driver. Father-
WP(C) NO. 14306 OF 2020
3
in-law of the petitioner is so weak and owns an autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL-06-8454, but was not having driving licence to ply the same. Copies of registration certificate proving ownership of the autorickshaw and contract carriage permit are produced as Exts.P2 and P3, respectively.
WP(C) NO. 14306 OF 2020
4
area. On 4.6.2020, second respondent along with the henchmen waylaid the petitioner and threatened to stop halting of the autorickshaw at Kurisupara area for hire expecting to return to his native place at Machiplavu, 20 k.m. away therefrom, and as and when the petitioner passes through Kurissupara with passengers, second respondent chases him and steps passengers down from the vehicle and sent them back without allowing the petitioner to collect the fair/charges. In this regard, petitioner made a complaint dated 24.6.2020, Ext.P4, to first respondent, who received it vide receipt, Ext.P5. But no action has been taken. It was in that background, this Court came to rescue the petitioner and passed the following order on 15.7.2020:
“The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1. Issue urgent notice before admission by speed post to respondent No.2.
Heard Sri.Padayattee Yeldo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
WP(C) NO. 14306 OF 2020
5
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, there will be an interim direction to the 1st respondent to ensure that law and order is maintained and, if requested for, grant protection to the life of the petitioner from any incursions by the 2nd respondent.”
no incident as alleged in the complaint Ext.P4 occurred. Be that as it may, life and liberty of citizens have to be protected as per the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be interdicted for earning livelihood, which also is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C) NO. 14306 OF 2020
6
Writ petition is ordered to be closed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in the writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE
jg
WP(C) NO. 14306 OF 2020
7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14306/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED DRIVING LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 08-08-2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW DATED 19-05-2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE ABOVE NUMBER VEHICLE DATED 02-06-2016 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE POLICE DATED 24-06-2020 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE POLICE DATED 24-06-2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requiring police protection for a rickshaw driver should continue pending given the first respondent's denial of the alleged incident.
Whether the principle of life and liberty under Article 21 and right to livelihood under Article 19 protects the petitioner's right to ply against rival drivers.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Aneesh Sukumaran
The Sub Inspector of Police Adimaly
Sri Sajeev
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
