Kerala High Court
The Sulthan Bathery Merchant'S ... vs The Superintendent Of Police on 4 October, 2012
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 21033 of 2012 (D)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. THE SULTHAN BATHERY MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION
(A UNIT OF VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI)
VYAPARA BHAVAN, POLICE STATION ROAD
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.K.VASUDEVAN
ANJALI TRADING COMPANY, SULTHAN BATHERY
WAYANAD DISTRICT.
*2. C.ABDUL KHADER
CHIEF ENGINEER YEM HARDWARES, SULTHAN BATHERY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, (GENERAL SECRETARY
THE SULTHAN BATHERY MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION (A UNIT OF VYAPARI
VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI)
VYAPARA BHAVAN, POLICE STATION ROAD
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592).
*THE ADDRESS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS C.ABDUL KHADER,
CEE YEM HARDWARES, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT (GENERAL
SECRETARY, THE SULTHAN BATHERY MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION (A UNIT OF
VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI), VYAPARA BHAVAN, POLICE
STATION ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592) AS PER THE ORDER PASSED IN
I.A.NO.12374/12 DATED 4.10.2012.
BY SR.ADV.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR
& ADV.SMT.SMITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
WAYANAD, KALPETTA-673 121, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
4. THE CITU (CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION)
MOTOR AND ENGINEERING WORKS UNION (GOODS VEHICLES)
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592
REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA SECRETARY SRI.JAYAPRAKASH.
WPC 21033/12
5. THE INTUC (INDIAN NATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS)
MOTOR WORKERS' UNION, SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI.AZEEZ.
6. THE STU (SWATHANDRA THOZHILALI UNION) (GOODS VEHICLE)
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI.EBRAHIM.
7. THE GOODS VEHICLES LABOURERS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE
SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592, WAYANAD DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AZEEZ.
8. SHRI. SOMANATHAN
CONVENOR
GOODS VEHICLES LABOURERS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE
SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
9. SRI. EBRAHIM T.
TREASURER
GOODS VEHICLES LABOURERS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE
SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SULTHAN BATHERY-673 592, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
R4 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
R4 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.R.SYAMKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-
10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 21033/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXTS.:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 30.8.12 ISSUED BY R9 COMMITTEE.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT. 5.9.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST
PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.
K.M.JOSEPH & K.HARILAL, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.21033 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2012 Judgment Joseph, J.
Petitioners have approached this court seeking police protection to carry the articles from their business premises to customers by whichever vehicles they choose and also by preventing illegal and unlawful obstruction by respondents 4 to 9 trade unions. A declaration is also sought for by them that the demand evidenced by Ext.P1 made by respondents 4 to 9 trade unions is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
The 1st petitioner is representing the Merchants based in Sulthan Bathery in Wayanad District. The 2nd petitioner, the General Secretary of the 1st petitioner-Association himself owns pickup van, goods autorickshaw etc. which are used for door delivery of materials to the advantage of the customers. Finding that the door delivery system is very convenient and becoming popular and vehicles particularly belonging to the members of the WPC 21033/12 2 1st petitioner-Association are carried and loaded with materials from the business premises by its owners, some of the trade unions started obstructions. They also strangely object and obstruct the carriage by small traders in vehicles like autorickshaws or even own vehicles for carrying such articles. They called strike by Ext.P1 notice. The 1st petitioner-Association filed Ext.P2 petition before the 2nd respondent.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 9 wherein it is inter alia stated that the 2nd respondent has his own vehicles and the same are used for transporting goods from the shop rooms of the petitioners. The respondents 4 to 9 are drivers by profession and they earn their livelihood derived from transporting goods in their vehicles from the 1st petitioner-Association. The members of the 1st petitioner- Association were hiring vehicles for transporting goods from their respective shops till recently. There are about 40 goods autorickshaws in the stand and the 40 families live from the earnings derived from the goods autorickshaws used for transporting goods from the 1st petitioner-Association. They denied the allegation that they obstructed the vehicles belonging to the petitioners. They further stated that they never attacked WPC 21033/12 3 any drivers of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners nor destroyed any vehicles.
4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.
5. Learned counsel for the party respondents would fairly say that they cannot have any legal right to obstruct the activities of the petitioners. If they cannot have any legal right, then the obstruction is illegal and the police is bound to take action against them. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by making the interim order absolute and by directing that protection will be given as and when required. We further make it clear that the applicability of the Head Load Workers Act and the Scheme is not a matter we have pronounced on and whenever it necessary, the petitioners are bound by the provisions of the Act and the Scheme.
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
srd WPC 21033/12 4 WPC 21033/12 5