SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ker) 563

High Court of Kerala
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
Paulson Zacharia
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Others
W.P. (C) No. 24001 of 2014
Decided On : 07-10-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rajit, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R2, Sujith Mathew Jose, Government Pleader, R4 - R5, Biju Martin, M.M. Salim, D.M. Nowfal, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226 -Nokku kooli is one thing which is anti social not only in Indian constitution but also in the anti social activities act.

JUDGMENT

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Heard. The petitioner is establishing a small scale industry. He has to install machineries which cannot be unloaded by head load workers alone. The machinery has to be unloaded and installed with the help of a crane. The private respondents are alleged to have claimed amounts which, in State of Kerala, God's own Country, is called by the sweet name Nokku Kooly, meaning in English, payment for watching. We think that if this watching includes proper activity of watch dogs, then payment either by way of money or food may be useful. Otherwise, this insistence of payment of what is called Nokku Kooly is nothing but a bane on the Indian society and it is a compulsion for other persons who are eligible under the Constitution of India to keep away from working in a particular locality. This Court had repeatedly sounded the requirement for the Governmental machineries to ensure the abolition of the system called Nokku Kooly. The claim for Nokku Kooly is not only an affront to the Constitution of India by an unauthorized and illegal extraction of money by creating a state of threat and deprivation of property. They amount to offences punishable in law. They are anti-social activities as defined in Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.

2. Be that as it may, the private respondents say that they are not involved in any obstruction and would not cause any obstruction. They, however, stand to point out that the petitioner does not have due licence. If somebody is to start an activity, he has to get completion certificate upon installation. These are matters to be looked into by the statutory authorities rather than the self imposed whistle-blowers prowling localities under the guise of professed activities in support of the labour forces of the State. Recording the submission of the private respondents as noted above, it is directed that if there is any obstruction to the activity of the petitioner, the jurisdictional police will provide adequate protection as may be necessary, in accordance with law.

Writ petition ordered accordingly.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top