K.C.VALSALA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner preferred this Writ Petition seeking police aid and protection to enable her to conduct bus service enroute Guruvayoor-Palakkad and Palakkad-Ottappalam free from existing threats of respondents 5 to 7. Respondents 5 to 7 are trade union leaders and member claiming employment in the petitioner's bus. Claim is seen raised with respect to the said employment on the basis of the fact that he was an employee of previous owner of the buses. Denial of this, petitioner to succumb to the unjust claim, made the party respondents adapt to threat and inducements, and previous history of the respondents are proof of their criminalities. Petitioner's claim before respondents 3 and 4 has fallen on deaf ears, and in the event of these, the party respondents are giving a final call and date to accede to their unjust demands, the petitioner is constrained to prefer this Writ Petition for adequate police protection to run her buses.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner purchased the buses from the previous owner and respondents 5 to 7 are obstructing. The 7th respondent apparently was working under the previous owner.