RAGHUNATHAN Vs. DY SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When C.M.P. No. 24255 of 1986 came up for hearing, the learned counsel of the petitioner and respondents 3, 4 and 5 and the Government Pleader submitted that the Original Petition itself can be disposed of.

(2.) The short question that has to be decided in this case is whether I should give a direction to the police to give protection to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent and another person by name Madhava Panicker who belonged to the third respondent Union are causing violent unlawful obstruction to the petitioner even to enter into his property. He is not allowed to live peacefully in a building in the properly in question. The petitioner's further case is that he is unlawfully prevented from doing the lawful agricultural operations in his property and also from taking the yield from the property.

(3.) The counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that the property in question is a rubber plantation and that the fifth respondent and Madhava Panicker were the permanent tapper and watcher respectively of the petitioner and that the petitioner has illegally denied work to the above two persons. This has created a tense situation and a serious labour problem. The said two persons along with their supporters are offering a peaceful satyagraha. They have no intention to cause any obstruction or disturbance to the petitioner. They are using only passive resistance.