High Court Kerala High Court

N.T.Sebastian vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 20 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
N.T.Sebastian vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 20 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1177 of 2011(V)


1. N.T.SEBASTIAN, NAMATTATHIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.I.OF POLICE MUNNAR,

3. C.NELSON, S/O.CHELLADURAI,

4. HYER UNNIZA, PANCHAYATHU MEMBER WARD X,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.J.MICHAEL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :20/01/2011

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT &
                  K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
            -------------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011-V
            -------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011

                            JUDGMENT

Basant,J.

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for

issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to

respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner

to enable him to remove one transformer which, the petitioner,

an electrical contractor, was entrusted by the ICSA (INDIA)

Ltd., Hyderabad. The petitioner is a contractor who had

undertaken the work of installing a transformer. In connection

with that, two transformers were entrusted to the petitioner.

The petitioner had taken them to the site. One of the

transformers has been installed. The other is to be taken away

from the locality and returned by the petitioner to M/s. ICSA

(INDIA) Ltd. The petitioner has finished his work. One of the

W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011 -: 2 :-

transformers has been installed. The other had to be removed.

While so, some local people of which respondents 3 to 5 are

named are attempting to forcibly obstruct the petitioner from

removing the transformer. Complaint made to the police did not

evoke any response and it is, in these circumstances, that the

petitioner has chosen to come to this Court with this writ

petition.

2. This petition was admitted. The learned Government

Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 5

have been served; but there is no appearance for them.

Respondent No.4 has not been served. Notice issued to him is

returned with an endorsement that no such addressee is residing

in that address. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these

circumstances, submits that the 4th respondent can now be

deleted from the array of parties. Three persons have been

named as respondents 3 to 5 to the best of the knowledge of the

petitioner now. Inasmuch as 4th respondent’s notice is returned

unserved, it is not necessary to wait for issue of notice to the 4th

respondent, it is submitted. The 4th respondent is thus deleted

from the array of parties.

3. The learned Government Pleader, after taking

instructions from respondents 1 and 2, submits that on enquiry

W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011 -: 3 :-

the police is satisfied about the legitimacy of the claim of the

petitioner. The transformer has been entrusted to the petitioner

as sub-contractor. The electrical contractor i.e., ICSA (INDIA)

Ltd., Hyderabad, wants the petitioner to return the transformer.

The learned Government Pleader submits that respondents 1 and

2 have instructed the learned Government Pleader that the local

people have no semblance of any right to object to the removal of

the transformer from the site where it was brought. It is not

necessary for drawing electrical connection. In these

circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are willing to provide the

requisite police protection for the petitioner, it is submitted.

4. We do entertain an apprehension as to whether three

convenient persons have been arrayed as respondents by the

petitioner as respondents 3 and 5 have not chosen to enter

appearance and resist the prayer. It is, in these circumstances,

that we heavily relied on the submission of the learned

Government Pleader about the stand of respondents 1 and 2.

They are supposed to be the responsible police officials who can

enlighten the court about the real nature of the dispute.

5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed.

Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to

the petitioner to remove the transformer which was brought by

W.P.(C) No. 1177 of 2011 -: 4 :-

him to the scene and which has not been used in connection with

the work.

Sd/-

R. BASANT
(Judge)

Sd/-

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge