AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—The Petitioner is a co-operative society. The Petitioner has been granted work of manual dredging of the earmarked zone No. 3 in Ponnani Port. Exts.P1 and P2 order and permit reveal the conditions under which the Petitioner has to undertake the said work. When the Petitioner made arrangements for undertaking the said work in terms of Exts.P1 and P2, some local persons including Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are raising objections. They are not permitting the Petitioner society to get the work done employing its members. A list of such members is provided in Ext.P3 register of employees. The Port Conservator, Ponnani Port had also addressed Ext.P6 letter to the local police, i.e. the Dy.S.P, Tirur. But in spite of that, necessary police protection is not afforded. It is, in these circumstances that the Petitioner has come before this Court with this petition for police protection.
Notice was served on Respondents 2 to 4. They have not chosen to enter appearance. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that there appears to be some disputes between local people and the Petitioner society regarding the persons who are to be employed for getting the work done as per Exts.P1 and P2. Police did try to settle the disputes between parties amicably, but no such settlement has been reached. The learned Government Pleader accepts that it is for the Petitioner to get the work done in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2. There is no binding agreement between the parties as to how that work is to be done and who are to be employed. Various proposals were suggested for assigning work to the members of the society and the local people. But such proposals have not found acceptance with the parties. In these circumstances, appropriate orders may be passed, submits the learned Government Pleader.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We have been taken through Exts.P1 and P2 in detail. The Petitioner must certainly comply with all the stipulations in Ext.P2. In the total absence of any materials, we are unable to find any validity for the objections allegedly raised by Respondents 2 to 4, who, it is averred, are obstructing the undertaking of the work as per Exts.P1 and P2 by the members of the Petitioner society.
We note that the society is under Exts.P1 and P2 entitled to get the work done. If the Petitioner society gets the work done by employing its own members, we find no valid reasons for any other to raise objections. In the total absence of any materials to indicate that any other persons or group of persons do also have rights to get portions of the work under Exts.P1 and P2 assigned to them, we find that the Petitioner is entitled to get an order in its favour.
In the result:
a) This Writ Petition is allowed;
b) The 1st Respondent is directed to afford protection to the Petitioner to get the work assigned to it under Exts.P1 and P2 performed by employing its own workmen notwithstanding the objections of Respondents 2 to 4;
c) Needless to say, this direction giving protection shall be afforded till 31.05.2011, the date to which Ext.P2 order holds the field and thereafter if valid extension is obtained.