RANADEVAN Vs. SUBRAMANNYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is as follows in brief:

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that now the tapping season has begun and the petitioner wanted to cut the bushes and clear the estate for work on engaging other workers. On 17/9/2012 when the workers engaged by the petitioner were doing work, respondents 1, 4 and 5 at the instigation of the 6th respondent came to the estate and threatened the petitioner's workers with dire consequences. They openly declared that if dismissed workers are not reinstated and given work, they will not allow the estate to function. They threatened, that they will do away with the petitioner and workers, if the petitioner engages other workers. Thus feeling danger to the life of the petitioner and seeking freedom to engage workers of his own choice, the petitioner submitted Ext. P5 complaint before the 7th respondent. But despite the specific complaint and demand for police protection for life to the petitioner and for engaging workers-for tapping rubber trees, the 7th respondent has not taken any steps to remove the threat. As a consequence of Ext. P5 complaint, on 20/9/2012 respondents 1 to 6 again came to the estate and threatened the petitioner that they will damage the rubber trees and endanger the life of the petitioner, if they are not allowed to do the work. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the 7th respondent, this writ petition is filed on various grounds.

(3.) The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of other respondents also contending as follows: