Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
MUHAMMED RAFEEK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought protection for operational tasks. (Para 1) |
| 2. court noted absence of counter affidavits and previous orders. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. writ petition disposed in accordance with interim order. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking appropriate directions to the police authorities to grant protection from respondents 4 to 6 for carrying out the loading and unloading works in his establishment using the registered permanent workers engaged by him.
2. In spite of the pendency of the writ petition from 2023 onwards, no counter affidavit has been placed on record by any of the respondents.
3. This Court notices that, while admitting the writ petition on 20.01.2023, this Court has already directed the Station House Officer to look into the complaint submitted by the petitioner and to afford necessary protection, if found necessary.
4. In the nature of the interim order granted as above, I am of the opinion that the grievance pointed out by the petitioner is substantially redressed.
In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of, in terms of the interim order dated 20.01.2023.
Sd/-
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
