ROSE MARIA SEBASTIAN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, a woman, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent No.1 to afford police protection to the petitioner against violent, culpable and illegal conduct by respondents 2 to 6, who allegedly attempt to obstruct the petitioner from carrying on the work of loading and unloading materials in connection with her business.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, permanent attached workmen of hers have been registered as loading and unloading workers under Rule 26 A of the Headload Workers Rules. In spite of such registration, respondents 2 to 6, who claim monopoly rights to do loading and unloading work, are not permitting the petitioner to get the work done by her permanent attached workers, who hold valid registration under Rule 26 A of the Headload Workers Rules. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) AS directed by this Court on 03.03.2011, notice was given to the Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board. The Standing Counsel for the Board has entered appearance. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the area is a scheme covered area. It is true that the petitioner has obtained registration for her permanent attached workmen under Rule 26 A of the Headload Workers Rules. The 1st respondent has challenged such registration before the competent authority. The Board has also been advised to prefer an appeal against such registration, as such registration was allegedly granted without notice to the Board. The learned Standing Counsel points out that the appellate authority has now got to consider whether the grant of registration for the permanent attached workmen is valid or not. Any decision in the matter can only be subject to the decision of the appellate authority on that appeal, submits the learned counsel for the Board.