IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 33830 of 2018 PETITIONER:

RIYAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KAREEM, PERINGATTUPARAMBIL, NETTOOR P.O, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS:

1 SIRAJUDHEEN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O KHALID, KALATHIL HOUSE, THANKI JUNCTION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688524.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688534.

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.

BY ADV. SRI.SUNU P.JOHN OTHER PRESENT SR.G.P. SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

01.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Petitioner says that he is the owner of two excavators bearing Regn.Nos.KL-59-B-6123 and KL-02-W-7414. His allegations in this writ petition are against the first respondent who, he says, is the owner of several excavators, as also the Secretary of an Association of owners of excavators in Kerala and he alleges that the first respondent, along with his henchmen are obstructing the petitioner when he operates the excavators on the ground that he is causing unhealthy competition by offering his services lesser than the rates fixed by the Association.

2. The petitioner says that he is a free citizen of India and that he has a fundamental right, guaranteed under the Constitution, as per which he cannot be stopped from operating his excavators in the manner that he chooses. On such broad allegations the petitioner prays that the Police be directed to afford him adequate and effective protection from the first respondent and his henchmen.

3. The learned senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, who are the concerned Police officers, submits that the disputes between the petitioner on one hand and the Association of excavators' owners on the other appears to be that the petitioner is charging a lower rate than what has been stipulated by the Association. The learned Government Pleader says that as of now there are no law and order issues but that if the disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent or the Association deteriorate into law and order infractions, the Police will certainly step in and take appropriate remedial action.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the allegations levelled against his client are completely baseless and that he or his men have neither obstructed the petitioner nor have any intention to do so in the future. He says that they have, however, taken up legal recourse against the petitioner before the competent Authorities and according to him, the petitioner's attempt in approaching this Court and seeking police protection order is to circumvent such legal processes.

5. On a consideration of the afore submissions, we are of the view that since the first respondent asserts that he has not and does not intend to cause any intimidation or threat to the petitioner, an order of continuous police protection may not be necessary. However, in case the petitioner makes any complaint before the second respondent- Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha with respect to the attempt or to the commission of the cognizable offence by the first respondent or any other person acting under him, they will be obliged in law to consider the same legally and pursue proper action thereon as is warranted in law.

6. Needless to say, the first respondent will be at liberty to pursue all legal remedies against the petitioner; however, he or his men shall not be in any manner entitled to take law into their own hands or to cause any threat or intimidation to the petitioner.

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN stu JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COP