ABDUL KAREEM Vs. UNNIKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to respondents 3 and 4 police officers to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner for doing work such as cutting of trees and removing the same from the estate referred to in Ext. P1 agreement without any obstruction to the petitioner and his workmen by respondents 1 and 2 or any other headload workers or other persons.

(2.) The petitioner is a contractor doing business in timber. He entered into an agreement dated 28-3-1990 with one Shri Pattikkadan Alikutty, the additional 8th respondent for cutting and removing 600 old rubber trees standing in Madhumala Estate in Sy.No.R.S. 164 of Kalikavu Village. Ext. P1 is the agreement. By Ext. P1 the estate owner sold the rubber trees to the petitioner and the petitioner was to cut and remove the same before 15th July. The petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- and on the date of agreement an amount of Rs.10,000/- had to be paid by the petitioner as advance. If the trees are not cut and removed within the time the advance paid will be forfeited. It is admitted by the 8th respondent before me that the time has been extended by two months from 15-7-1990 and the trees could not be cut and removed for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. For the purpose of cutting and removing the said trees from the estate the petitioner engaged 83 workers belonging to respondents 5 to 7. The operation regarding the cutting of trees commenced on 7-5-1990. But when lorries came to the estate for the purpose of loading and removing the timber from the estate, according to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 styling themselves as leaders of the Headload Workers of Poongode area obstructed the loading activities attended to by the workers of the petitioner. According to respondents 1 and 2 cutting of the trees and transportation of the same from the estate ought to have been started only with the consent of respondents l and 2. They also insisted that cutting, loading and transporting of trees can be done only through the Headload workers nominated by respondents l and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 forcibly prevented the petitioner from removing the trees. If the petitioner and the workmen numbering over 80 forcibly transport the goods, it was apprehended that breach of peace and law and order situation will be precipitated. Hence the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police for protection. Thereafter the petitioner was summoned to the Kalikavu Police Station by the 3rd respondent. Even though the petitioner went to the police station, in view of the adamant and unreasonable attitude taken by the leaders of the headload workers' union, no agreement could be arrived at. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Circle Inspector of Police as advised by the 3rd respondent for exploring the possibility of arriving at a settlement. A settlement talk with the leaders of the Headload Workers Union in the presence of the Circle Inspector of Police also did not bring about an result. According to the petitioner this situation arose because of the unreasonable attitude of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore seeing that respondents 1 and 2 was determined to take the law into their own hands and prevent the lawful activities and peaceful conduct of the business by the petitioner, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent requesting him to extend adequate police protection for enabling the petitioner to do the work of cutting of trees and removal of the same from the estate. Ext. P2 is the said request. It is pointed out in Ext. P2 that all attempt for a peaceful solution of the problem at the level of Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector of Police having been failed, the petitioner had no other alternative but to approach the 4th respondent for a solution of the problem. Ext. P2 is dated 7-6-1990. There was no positive move to solve the problem or extend police protection for cutting and removing the trees mentioned in Ext. P1 agreement Hence the petitioner filed this Original Petition seeking police protection.

(3.) When the Original Petition came up for admission the Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the 4th respondent and the petitioner took notice to respondents 1 to 3, and 5 to 7 by special messenger. Additional 8th respondent, the owner of the estate got himself impleaded.