Disposed

Babu John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2023WP(C)/42210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a property owner seeking to construct a pond, faced obstruction by trade union members hindering granite removal. Court sought to provide police protection for vehicle movement and loading activities.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner for carrying out loading and unloading using mechanical devices in the petitioner's property and not to block vehicles.

Babu John Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 42210 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BABU JOHN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O V.M, JOHN, VAZHIPLACKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN – 686 542.

¶8

BY ADV SANIL JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIMUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶11

2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OFFICE OF DISTRICT POLICE, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM ., PIN - 686002

¶12

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 540.

¶13

4 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY., PIN – 686 101.

¶14

5 KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD KOTTAYAM, CHANGANACHERRY SUB OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY , REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER, PIN – 686 101.

¶15

6 CENTRE FOR INDIAN TRADE UNION (CITU) HEADLOAD WORKERS UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT

¶16

¶17

WP(C) NO. 42210 OF 2023

¶18

SECRETARY., PIN – 686 542.

¶19

7 INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS (INTUC) HEADLOAD WORKERS UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM UNIT NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT PRESIDENT, PIN – 686 542.

¶20

8 KERALA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (KTUC) HEADLOAD WORKERS UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT PRESIDENT, PIN – 686 542.

¶21

9 ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS (AITUC) HEADLOAD WORKERS UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT SECRETARY, PIN – 686 542.

¶22

10 CKTU

¶23

HEADLOAD WORKERS UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM UNIT, NEDUMKUNNAM
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT
SECRETARY, PIN – 686 542.

¶24

BY ADV S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM)

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

GP SREEJITH V.S

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 42210 OF 2023

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

(Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2023)

¶32

The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of more than an acre of property in Sy.No. 211/12,211/11,211/2, of Block No.19 Nedumkunnam Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District. His wife is also having another property to the extent of 65 cents in Sy. No. 211/4 which are lying contiguously. Agricultural activities are conducted in both the properties and he intend to construct a pond in the property. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Ground Water Department of Kottayam District, and after detailed inspection was issued with permission to construct the same. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order the petitioner started constructing the pond and for that some granite stones are to be removed from the site. NOC was obtained from the concerned Sub Collector, Kottayam by Ext.P1. With all

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 42210 OF 2023

¶35

the permits, the petitioner started to remove the granite stones, then the respondents obstructed the petitioner stating that, they are having right to load and unload the granite stones. Though a written request was made to the police authorities, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court seeking police protection to carry out loading and unloading using mechanical devices in the petitioner’s property from the threat of members of 6 to 10 trade unions and not block the vehicles. Though a notice was issued from this Court through special messenger, the 10th respondent alone accepted it, and other respondents refused to accept it, stating that no specific name was in the notice.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent submits that the area where the property is situated is not a scheme-covered area. Taking into consideration to the fact that, it is not a scheme covered area and the respondents 6 to 10 do not have a right to

¶37

¶38

WP(C) NO. 42210 OF 2023

¶39

claim loading and unloading activities, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner for carrying out loading and unloading using mechanical devices in the petitioner's property and not to block the vehicles coming and going out of the petitioner’s property.

¶40

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, as above.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI

JUDGE

SRJ

WP(C) NO. 42210 OF 2023

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42210/2023

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOC DATED 29/9/2022
ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.(RT).NO.797/2023/ID DATED 7/8/2023
Exhibit P3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRANSIT PASS DATED
4/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P4TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
11/12/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
11/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Babu John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu John 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somarajan Mathu Vs Union of India

Sideeque K.P. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Telese Jose Vs the District Police Chief

St.Luigi School Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Atc Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs the District Telecom Committee

Union Air Products Private Limited, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner