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

3

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

4

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

5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE

PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED

4.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P2

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4.10.2018

SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.10.2018

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD

RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4

TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8.10.2018 IN

CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED

BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5

TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6.10.2018 ISSUED

BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE.