LAWS(KER)-2011-1-247

N T SEBASTIAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Decided On January 20, 2011
N.T.SEBASTIAN Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner to enable him to remove one transformer which, the petitioner, an electrical contractor, was entrusted by the ICSA (INDIA) Ltd., Hyderabad. THE petitioner is a contractor who had undertaken the work of installing a transformer. In connection with that, two transformers were entrusted to the petitioner. THE petitioner had taken them to the site. One of the transformers has been installed. THE other is to be taken away from the locality and returned by the petitioner to M/s. ICSA (INDIA) Ltd. THE petitioner has finished his work. One of the transformers has been installed. THE other had to be removed. While so, some local people of which respondents 3 to 5 are named are attempting to forcibly obstruct the petitioner from removing the transformer. Complaint made to the police did not evoke any response and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has chosen to come to this Court with this writ petition.

(2.) THIS petition was admitted. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 5 have been served; but there is no appearance for them. Respondent No.4 has not been served. Notice issued to him is returned with an endorsement that no such addressee is residing in that address. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, submits that the 4th respondent can now be deleted from the array of parties. Three persons have been named as respondents 3 to 5 to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner now. Inasmuch as 4th respondent's notice is returned unserved, it is not necessary to wait for issue of notice to the 4th respondent, it is submitted. The 4th respondent is thus deleted from the array of parties.

(3.) THIS writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to remove the transformer which was brought by him to the scene and which has not been used in connection with the work.