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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
M/S.TRAVANCORE GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43952 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.R.S.LAKSHMAN, SMT.SUDAKSHINA MENA PRASAD, SHRI.NIRANJAN M.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GP, SRI.KRISHNADAS P NAIR-R3-14

Court permits limited police protection to reclaim premises while prohibiting operational actions pending necessary licenses.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks police protection to remove machinery and facilitate entry to premises after halting operations due to financial constraints. Respondents obstruct this claiming arrears. Court determines that adequate police protection is necessary for the petitioner’s lawful activities while clarifying no quarry operations are permitted due to missing licenses.

Table of Content
1. seeks police protection for machinery removal. (Para 1)
2. arguments on the claim of obstruction. (Para 2)
3. court's ruling on protection and limitations. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, seeks police protection in order to remove certain machinery and also for entry and exit to the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was earlier conducting a quarry as well as a crusher unit. Due to the financial stringency, the functioning of the same had to be stopped during 2022- 23. Now, with the aid of another person, who is inclined to take the property on lease, the petitioner wants to restart the business in the crusher unit. However, he has not obtained any permit for the same. The petitioner, for the time being, wants to remove certain old machineries, as also, to facilitate his entry and exit from the premises. The same is being objected to by respondents 3 to 14, is the grievance of the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 14 were earlier employed in the quarry and the crusher unit operated by the petitioner. They are causing obstruction claiming salary arrears, gratuity etc. A settlement agreement was arrived at, whereby, it was agreed that Rs.50,000/- will be paid to each of the employees, including respondents 3 to 14. However, the said respondents are seeking more amount, and causes illegal obstruction to the activities of the petitioner, is the grievance.

2. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 14, on whom notice have been served through Special Messenger, would submit that the said respondents are not causing any obstruction and that they will agitate their claims as per law.

3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that to conduct even a crusher unit, the petitioner is not equipped with any licence or permit.

3. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner/Company for the limited purpose of removing the machineries from the premises, and also, for entry and exit from the premises. All the activities, which the petitioner can do legitimately as the owner of the premises has to be enabled. However, it is clarified that no operation with respect to the quarry or crusher unit will come within the sweep of this judgment, inasmuch as the petitioner is not equipped by necessary licences and permits. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

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