GEORGE Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, three in number, in O.P.No. 957 of 1990-L, are the appellants in this writ appeal. This case belongs to the class of cases which are now known as "Police Protection Cases". Respondents 3 to 5 are Secretaries of three Trade Unions (I. N. T. U. C., S. T. U. and C. I. T. U.). The first respondent is the Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarghat and the second respondent is the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannarghat. The petitioners/appellants are the joint owners in possession of 11.311/2 acres of land in Survey No. 130/IA in Arakurussi amsom desom in Mannarghat Taluk. They claim to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the above rubber plantation from 1986 onwards. It is stated that the petitioners/appellants sold the right to cut and remove the old rubber trees from the estate to M/s. Bappu and Moidu, by agreement dated 14-1-1990. The agreement was for slaughter tapping of 2250 rubber trees. The trees have to be cut and removed on or before 14-3-1990. As per the agreement between the parties, if any loss is caused to the vendees by obstruction by any other parties, the petitioners should remove the obstruction. The copy of the agreement, entered into between the petitioners and the vendees, is Ext. P1. The petitioners aver that respondents 3 to 5, leaders of Trade Unions, are interfering with the legitimate activities of the citizens of the area and obstructing the removal of the timber from the petitioners' estate. The vendees, under the agreement, cut and tried to remove a lorry load of trees from the estate on 15-1-1990. The workers belonging to the Trade Unions of respondents 3 to 5 obstructed the removal of timber. Thereupon, the third petitioner preferred a complaint before the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police - praying for affording adequate police protection. Another similar petition was also sent on 24-1-1990, evidenced by Ext. P2. No action was taken on the above petitions. The inaction of respondents l and 2 is due to political influence and for extraneous reasons. A direction is necessary from this Court to give adequate police protection to the petitioners. Similar direction was issued by this Court in O.P.No.9763 of 1989-K, evidenced by Ext. P3. The petitioners have no other effective alternative remedy except to approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In the grounds, the petitioners state that the respondents have ample powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Kerala Police Act, 1960 to take measures to prevent commission of offences and to keep law and order. The petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus compelling respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to enable them to cut, remove and safely transport the rubber trees from the petitioners' property by the vendees with workers of their choice, against any obstruction by respondents 3 to 5 or any of their members. The petitioners also pray for further relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant.

(2.) At the admission stage itself, the Government Pleader placed before the Court the order passed by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner dated 22-12-1989. In the said order, it is stated that the work in the locality, where the petitioners' estate is situate, is to be carried on by workers belonging to respondents 3 to 5 in the ratio of 6:2:2 among S.T.U., C.I.T.U. and I.N.T.U.C. The learned single Judge noticed the above aspect. It was represented before the learned single Judge that the petitioners have no permanent workers for attending to the work of loading and unloading of timber logs. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge held that the petitioners can get the work done only by engaging labourers from the locality and if they engage the labour in the ratio of 6:2:2 among the members of the three Unions, S.T.U., C.I.T.U. and I.N.T.U.C., there will be no obstruction from respondents 3 to 5, their followers or supporters. The learned single Judge further held that even if any obstruction is caused by respondents 3 to 5 or their supporters, respondents 1 and 2 will take effective steps to remove the obstruction. The Criminal Petition was disposed of in the above manner. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 6-2-1990, the petitioners in the O.P. have come up in writ appeal.

(3.) We heard counsel for the appellants, Mr. O. V. Radhakrishnan, counsel for respondents 3 to 5 Mr. M.K. Damodaran and Mr. K. P. G. Menon, and the learned Advocate General, who appeared for respondents 1 and 2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were not panics in the proceedings, wherein the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner passed the order dated 22-12-1989, that it was passed in a different situation and context, that the said order was largely based on consent and in such circumstances the learned single Judge was in error in moulding the relief based on the said order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. After verification, counsel for the respondents, the learned Advocate General and Mr. K. P. G. Menon, submitted in Court that the scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 is not applicable to the area wherein the petitioners' estate is situate and the order passed by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner dated 22-12-1989 will not apply to the locality. In this view, we have to hold that reliance placed by the learned single Judge on the aforesaid order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner dated 22-12-1989 was unjustified. The reasoning and conclusion of the learned single Judge wherein a direction was given based on the said order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner dated 22-12-1989 is unsustainable. We hold so.