C V JAYACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the fourth occasion that this court had to consider the right of petitioner to carry on his business, without let or hindrance from 7th respondent and those acting under it. Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm 'sarathy Motors' dealing in two and three wheelers. These are brought in doubledeck lorries from Pune and unloaded in petitioner's show room by skilled workers with the aid of a ramp. According to petitioner, of the 11 workmen, four are trained at 'bajaj Auto Ltd. '. It is alleged that those acting under the 7th respondent, had been obstructing the work of unloading scooters, from lorries, desiring to do it themselves.

(2.) PETITIONER moved this court by O. P. 648/88 complaining of interference by 7th respondent, and by Ext. P1 judgment dated 11-21988 a learned Judge of this court directed Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police, Quilon to render aid to petitioner to carry on his business without hindrance from 7th respondent. 7th respondent appealed against that judgment and by Ext. P2, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the view of the learned Judge that, "union have no legal right and that if. . . . . the Union interferes with the legitimate right of choosing one's own workmen for unloading, it becomes the duty of the police to prevent unlawful action of causing obstruction".

(3.) UNDAUNTED by two judgments of this court, 7th respondent continued their ways, and once again petitioner had to move this court by O. P. 2917/88. By Ext. P3 judgment, a learned Judge of this court directed : ". . . . . . there shall be no obstruction or impediment for the petitioner for the lawful carrying on of the business of the petitioner. If there is any impediment or obstruction. . . . . . . . police officials are bound to give all police aid and help to the petitioner".