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

2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED FAZIL K.A – Appellant
Versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 9503/2020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9503 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S:

MOHAMMED FAZIL K.A AGED 33 YEARS S/O.K.K.ABDUL LATHEEF, KOONATHIL HOUSE, ENGILODI, OTTUPARA, KUMARANELLOOR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680

590 BY ADVS.

P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE), WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 582

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 582

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-KUNNAMKULAM RD, KUNNAMKULAM, KERALA-680

503

4 K.P.MADANAN, AGED 52 YEARS CITU LEADER, KELAMPILAKKAL, KUMARANELLOR P.O., THRISSUR-680 590

5 SALI, AGED 45 YEARS AITUC LEADER, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, JARAMKUNNU, THRISSUR-680 007

6 MADHU AGED 45 YEARS BMS UNION LEADER,KUMARANELLOR P.O., THRISSUR-680

590

7 RAZAQ AGED 58 YEARS AITUC UNION LEADER, KUMARANELLOR P.O., THRISSUR-680

590

8 ADDL.R8. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD HEAD OFFICE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

9 ADDL.R9. KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, THRISSUR DISTRICT OFFICE, HAIHIND MARKET BUILDING,KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR-

680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

ADDL. RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6-7-2020 IN IA 1/2020).

10 ADDL.R10. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, SOUHRUDA ARCHADE, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY,THRISSUR, PIN-680582.

(ADDL.RESPONDENT NO. 10 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01-10-2020 IN WP(C).

BY ADVS.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KHWWB SHRI.PRAVEEN S.

SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SHRI.MATHEW K.T. SHRI.GEORGE K.V.

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.REKHA.C.NAIR, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------------

W.P.(C.) No.9503 of 2020 --------------------------------------

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2021

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.1 to 3 to afford adequate protection to the petitioner, his workers and drivers to do the loading and unloading works in the godown situated in Re.Sy.No.54/35 and 8/16 of Kumaranelloor village and to transport the same without obstruction from Respondents 4 to 7, its members or agents;

ii) grant the petitioner such other appropriate relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;

AND iii) award the petitioner the costs of this Writ Petition.

2. The short facts are like this : The petitioner is a partner of a firm engaged in the business of supply of essential commodities to Supplyco and Consumerfed. The godown of the petitioner is situated in re-survey No. 54/25 and 8/16 of Kumaranelloor Village. According to the petitioner, he is having his own head load workers registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 for doing loading and unloading works in his godown. It is the case of the petitioner that the contesting respondents are creating trouble and hence, this police protection petition is filed. According to the petitioner, the area where the godown is situated, is not an area, where the Kerala Head Load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (for short ‘the scheme’) is implemented. Hence, the petitioner contended that he has got right to engage his own workers. The respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed a detailed counter affidavit, disputing the facts in the writ petition. The additional respondent Nos. 8 and 9 also filed a counter.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and the learned counsel for additional respondent Nos. 8 and 9. I also heard the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top