Kerala High Court
Anugraha Engineering vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2014
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAYOF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA,1938
WP(C).No. 39997 of 2016 (Y)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER : -
-----------------------
ANUGRAHA ENGINEERING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRORPRIETOR PETER D'SOUZA,
DIANA VILLA, oPPOSITE GOVERNMENT HEALTH CENTRE,
SURATHKAL MANGALORE, KARNATAKA-575014.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.SANJAY
SRI.M.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENTS : -
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (HOME).
2. STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AMABALAMEDU POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM -682 303.
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 301.
5. COMMISSIONER OF POLCE,
KOCHI CITY - 682 011.
6. REJI V.R.,
ANU ENGINEERING CONCEPT,
AMBALAMUGAL KOCHI,
VETTIKATTU, KAROTE,
AMABALAMUGAL-682302.
WP(C).No. 39997 of 2016 (Y)
------------------------------------
7. M/S. BPCL REFINERYKOCHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
KOCH - 682 302.
R6 BY ADV.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
R6 BY ADV.SRI.MANU GOVIND
R6 BY ADV.SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
R6 BY ADV.SMT.B.MEERA
R6 BY ADV.SRI.S.SABARINADH
BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.P.THAJUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 39997 of 2016 (Y)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 03/01/2014 ISSUED BY
DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING LTD., IN FAVOUROF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/08/2016 ISSUED BY
DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE HIRING LETTER ISSUED BY SS ROAD WAYS,
ALWAYEDATED 23/11/2016.
EXHIBIT P3(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE HIRING LETTER ISSUED BY SS ROAD WAYS,
ALWAYEDATED 25/11/2016.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER GIVEN TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT
DATED08/05/2014.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3rd RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4th RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2nd RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 : PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LORRIES ILLEGALLYKEPT BY THE 6th
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 : THE LIST OF THE EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL IN THE LORRIES.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : -
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R6(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
10.09.2015 FROM M/s DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEER3ING
Pvt. Ltd. TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R6(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE BILL BEARING No. Ref. AEC/DPC/KR/001
DATED 24.08.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 6th
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(c) : COPY OF THE HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED23.11.2016
PROVIDED BY Sri. FRANCIS ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER.
WP(C).No. 39997 of 2016 (Y)
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R6(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 3rd RESPONDENT BY THE 6th RESPONDENT.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A.TO JUDGE
DMR/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No. 39997 of 2016
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, stating that the vehicles bearing Nos. KA-25 B 4608 and KA 25 C 2385 with two lorry loads of the equipments belonging to the petitioner have been forcefully detained at the instance of the sixth respondent for nearly one month, with a prayer for granting effective police protection, to take it to the destination.
2. The petitioner had obtained a work order (Exhibit P1), issued by M/s Driplex Water Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, who is the original Contractor under the BPCL, Cochin Refinery. The work has been completed by the petitioner with the involvement of the sixth respondent, based on Exhibit P4 sub contract. According to the petitioner, no amount is due to the sixth respondent and all payments have already been effected. When the petitioner attempted to take out the belongings in the two lorries covered by W.P. (C) No. 39997 of 2016 2 Exhibit P3 and P3(a), the vehicles were forcefully obstructed and taken to custody by the sixth respondent and persons under him and have been kept in some premises causing law and order situation, alleging that more amount is due to him. The attempt made by the petitioner to have the Police intervened by submitting Exhibit P5, P6 & P7 before the 3rd, 4th and 2nd respondents (police authorities) respectively did not turn to be fruitful and hence the writ petition.
3. Heard Sri. T. Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Manu Govind, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
4. The sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that much amounts are due to him in connection with Exhibit P4 sub contract given to him by the petitioner herein. It is also pointed out that, but for the equipments and other things which are attempted to be taken back from the premises of the BPCL where the work has been carried out, there is no other source for the sixth respondent to get his amount recovered from the petitioner. W.P. (C) No. 39997 of 2016 3 It is also pointed out that he has moved the Sub Court, Perumbavoor by filing a Civil Suit, O.S. No.51/2016, and that an Advocate Commissioner has already been appointed. Though a petition for attachment of moveables before judgment has been moved, no orders have been passed therein so far, however adding that the case is listed today.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that as per the information gathered by the Police, the vehicles have been abandoned by somebody and are lying there. We have seen Exhibit P8 photographs produced along with the writ petition.
6. According to the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, the vehicles are lying in the premises of a local Temple and that they are not in the custody of the sixth respondent.
7. After hearing both the sides, we find that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent in connection with the contract and rival claims have been put forth. This naturally has to be adjudicated before a proper forum, based on the facts, pleadings and evidence to be let W.P. (C) No. 39997 of 2016 4 in. As on date, admittedly no order of attachment has been passed by any Court of law. There is no justification for keeping the vehicles in the alleged illegal custody, whether it be with the sixth respondent or anybody else.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four more loads of equipments have to be taken out from the premises of the BPCL. It is open for the sixth respondent, if so advised, to proceed against such other property, if any. We cannot, but hold that nobody can take the law into his hands and we have to ensure that the Rule of Law is sustained. The vehicles covered by Exhibit P3 and P3(a) and the goods loaded therein cannot be detained without any authority.
9. In the said circumstance, we direct the Police (Respondents 2 to 5) to render effective and adequate protection to take the vehicles covered by Exhibit P3 and P3(a) along with the goods without being forcefully prevented by the sixth respondent or anybody under him till they cross the border of the State. It is also made clear that we are not dealing with the merits of the dispute W.P. (C) No. 39997 of 2016 5 between the petitioner and the sixth respondent, which is to be adjudicated by the Civil Court, where the issue is pending.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE P. SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-