Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
ASHITHA AGED 42 YEARS W/O SHAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32713 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.K.S.RAJESH
For the Respondents: SMT. AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP, SRI.MANSOOR ALI, SHRI.JIBIN BABU
The court emphasizes seeking remedies through proper channels while ensuring law and order is maintained during disputes regarding business operations.
Headnote:This writ petition seeks police protection against obstruction of vehicle movement to a brick manufacturing unit. The petitioners hold valid licenses and claim obstruction by respondents who allege damage to public roads. The Court directs parties to seek remedies, noting police intervention if disputes escalate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking police protection against obstruction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding vehicle movement and public road damage. (Para 3) |
| 3. court directs parties to seek legal remedies. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2025 This writ petition is filed seeking Police protection on the allegation that the movement of vehicles transporting raw materials and finished products to and from the petitioners brick manufacturing unit is being obstructed by the party respondents.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ unit is functioning with all requisite license and permissions and in such circumstances, respondents 5 to 9 have no right to obstruct the movement of vehicles.
3. Learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 9 submitted that the movement of heavily loaded vehicles to and from the petitioners’ unit has caused extensive damage to the public road. It is submitted by the Counsel that, apart from resorting to legal remedies, respondents 5 to 9 have not caused any physical obstruction as alleged by the petitioners.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the validity of Ext.P5 notification has been upheld by this Court and refers to the interim order dated 16.11.2023, by which this Court, taking note of the challenge against Ext.P5 notification, had directed this writ petition to be posted along with the connected cases.
Taking the above submissions into consideration, more particularly, the submission of the learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 9 that his clients have no intention of causing any physical obstruction, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the parties to work out their remedies. Needless to say, if the dispute between the petitioners and respondents 5 to 9 flares into a law and order issue, the Police is bound to intervene and take necessary preventive action.
