NIPUN G Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, claims to be the proprietor of M/s. Prince Enterprises, who is having dealership of food grains in Malappuram District at Valanchery. According to him, he has his own permanent workers for loading and unloading work and the same is being obstructed by party respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner has approached the Police for necessary protection for carrying out the loading and unloading work and prevent party respondents from interfering with the work being carried on, but no action has been taken by them. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection against respondents 3 to 6 and their men, for the petitioner, his workers and his property. Counter-affidavit is filed by respondents 3 to 6 inter alia stating that though the area in question was not a scheme covered area, subsequently it was declared as scheme covered area. Registration cards in terms of Exts. P6 to P9 were issued by the authority at a time when it is not a scheme covered area. But now the unit has been transferred to another place and petitioner has violated the provisions in the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. According to them, even if the permanent workers have registration under Rule 26A of Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, after the area has been declared as scheme covered area, they are not entitled to carry on the work and the party respondents are entitled for loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 and learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2012 4 KerLJ 299with specific reference to paragraphs 17 and 18 which reads as under: