IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37764 of 2010(U)
1. MR.ARAVINDHAKSHAN P.V., PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. C.I.T.U. PERINGOTTUKARA UNIT,
5. INTUC PERINGOTTUKARA UNIT,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :13/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(C) No.37764 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of
directions to respondents 1 to 3 under Article 226 of the
Constitution to afford protection to the petitioner against illegal,
culpable and violent acts of respondents 4 and 5, who allegedly
obstruct the petitioner in loading and unloading materials.
2. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Service is
complete. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by the learned
Government Pleader. Respondents 4 and 5, though served, have
not chosen to appear before Court.
3. The learned Government Pleader after taking
instructions submits that the area is not a scheme covered area.
The learned Government Pleader further points out that interim
directions were issued by this Court on 23.12.2010 and the same
has been extended till this date. The relevant order passed on
23.12.2010 reads as follows:
“In such circumstances, there will be an
interim order directing respondents 2 and 3 to
2
provide protection to the life of the petitioner and
his employees engaged in unloading raw materials
brought into the petitioner’s unit and loading
finished concrete blocks from the petitioner’s unit
as against any obstruction from members of
respondents 4 and 5 for a period of two weeks.”
4. That order remains in force even now. The learned
Government Pleader submits that, in these circumstances, the
said interim order can be made absolute and further proceedings
in this Writ Petition can be closed. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also accepts that such course can be followed.
5. In the result:
a) This writ petition is allowed in part;
b) The interim direction issued on 23.12.2010 extracted
above is confirmed and shall remain in force.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/