High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 03 KL CK 0057

Amuthan Rajen @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Kerala And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Vinod Chandran, J · Ashok Menon, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 28253 Of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 304 words
1.

The petitioner is before this Court claiming police protection for carrying out the work of the establishment of the petitioner at Xandari Pearl situated at Beach Road, Arattukulam Junction, Mararikulam. The petitioner has averred in the Writ Petition that the area is not one covered under the Scheme framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and the Rules. It is alleged that respondents 5 to 8 are causing obstruction by claiming the loading and unloading work in the premises, for articles brought for the construction of the seven villas in the resort.

2.

The 8th respondent appears through Counsel and submits that he has not sought for any loading and unloading work nor is he involved in any manner in the dispute as projected by the petitioner.

3.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 to 7 in which it has been specifically averred that they are fishermen by profession. They assert in the counter-affidavit they have never demanded any headlod work and that their grievance is with respect to a water way passing through the petitioner's property having been obstructed. They, for fishing activities, used to pass through the said water way, which has now been closed and hence representations have been made to the Revenue Divisional officer and the Panchayat, is the specific contention. The respondents content that the Writ Petition for police protection is a clear abuse of process of law. We see that there is no reply affidavit filed to the counter-affidavit filed on 16-09-2017. We are hence not inclined to grant any relief in the Writ petition, which according to us has been filed with false averments alleging that the fishermen, who were concerned with a totally different issue, had been claiming headload work in the petitioner's establishment. We hence dismiss the Writ petition. No costs.