O.V. NAMBIAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHEMICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are as follows: -

(2.) THE very competent counsel, Mr. N. Chandrasekaran for the petitioner submits that the previous owner one Rathaunnisa Bi had executed a registered lease agreement with the petitioner herein on 28.04.1962 for the period of 50 years and handed over the physical possession of an extent of 6.59 acres of vacant land. The petitioner's father, viz., T.V.P. Nambiar had put up a construction for the purpose of setting up a factory, at his cost. Accordingly, buildings have been constructed and factory has started functioning in the said premises. The said original lease agreement had expired on 30.04.2012. Subsequently, the said lease agreement had been renewed for another period of 49 years. Further, the petitioner herein and his mother and sister are running the factory without any interference since the petitioner's father had expired on 19.11.1979. The original owner, viz., Rathaunnisa Bi had expired in the year 1979. Therefore, the co -owner, one Gundu Abdul Shukoor had executed a sale deed to and in favour of Basir Ali, Rathinaraj, Kalidoss, Nagarajan, Balamurugan and Suresh Solomon.

(3.) THE learned counsel further submits that on 06.04.2014, at about 6 a.m., the said land owners, viz., Basir Ali, Rathinaraj, Kalidoss, Nagarajan, Balamurugan and Suresh Solomon and a group of anti -social elements had entered into the factory premises, in an unnumbered JCB vehicle and unnumbered bulldozer vehicle, with deadly weapons and demolished the compound wall of the petitioner's factory in the southern side and made a wrong entry into the factory and demolished a portion of the factory building. Immediately, the petitioner rushed to the fifth respondent police and lodged a complaint against the land owners and his men. The said complaint had been registered in Crime No. 578 of 2014 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427, 506(ii) IPC. After registering the said complaint, the fifth respondent did not take any effective steps to secure the accused to initiate action against them. This kind of unlawful activities has been carried out by the accused while this Hon'ble Court's interim injunction order is in force. Therefore, the fifth respondent had not provided adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and property, even after knowing about the alleged activities of the land owners. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to provide an adequate police protection to the petitioner's premises.