LAILA Vs. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is a stockist of cement; which business is being looked after by the 2nd petitioner, the son. The 1st petitioner has obtained D&O licence from the Panchayat, as per Exhibit P1. A Consent to Operate has been issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board [for brevity "PCB"], evidenced by Exhibit P2. The petitioners, while carrying on the business, was obstructed by the respondents 4 to 6, claiming loading and unloading work.

(2.) The 3rd respondent, on instructions from its Thiruvananthapuram Unit, categorically submits that the area in which the petitioners are carrying on the business is not a scheme covered area. Hence, it is the option of the petitioners as to whom to be engaged for doing the loading and unloading work.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalapuram Police Station, submits that there was an obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 6 and on complaint received, they were summoned to the Police Station and warned.