Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MUHAMMED ANZARI – Appellant
Versus
PRADEEP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observations on the absence of need for police protection. (Para 2) |
| 2. local laws dictate the engagement of registered headload workers. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. final ruling on the disposal of the writ petition. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2025 The petitioner is the owner and proprietor of “Pulinchuvallil Agencies”. Now, there are five employees / labourers to load and unload materials. The 1st respondent and his headload union workers are making obstruction and destruction, when the petitioner is loading and unloading the materials through his deployed labourers and they are not allowing unloading any materials by threatening that they will set to fire the materials and the shop.
2. Ext.P3 is the complaint filed by the petitioner for police protection before the concerned Police Station. However, the 5th respondent has neglected the request stating that police protection cannot be granted unless there should be a court order. Unless there is an order for police protection by this Court, there is every possibility of further illegal acts and obstructions, contends the petitioner.
3. Heard.
4. The allegation of the petitioner is that the head
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
