Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933** **WP(C).No. 9016 of 2011(B)** **--------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **------------------------** **DHANALAXMI BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.G.JAYAKUMAR, SON OF M.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, DHANALAXMI BANK LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, NAIKANAL, THRISSUR-1.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI. LEO GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR-680 001.** **4. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM-682 016.** **5. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST, THRISSUR-680 005.** **7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST, THRISSUR-680 005.** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.9016/2011** ## **8. ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS CONFEDERATION** **(AIBOC), REP. BY SECRETARY, V.K.PRASAD, ALL INDIA OFFICERS CONFEDERATION, STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, AIBOC BHAVAN, ST.BENEDICT ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.** ## **9. DHANALAXMI BANK OFFICERS ORGANISATION** - **(DBOO),** **REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.V.MOHANAN, DHANALAXMI BANK OFFICERS ORGANISATION, DBOO CENTRE, ADJACENT TO KOTTAPPURAM RAILWAY CROSS, THRISSUR-680 001.** **R1 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R8 & R9 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHIR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.9016/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1 COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED BY MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY ON 10/11/2010** - **P2 COPY OF THE LEAFLET PUBLISHED BY THE EIGHTH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.** - **P3 COPY OF THE LEAFLET PUBLISHED IN THE NAME OF V.K.PRASAD, SECRETARY, ALL INDIAN BANK OFFICERS CONFEDERATION DATED NIL.** - **P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTEDBY THE BANK TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT DATED 19/3/2011.** - **P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 20/3/2011.** - **P6 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED 21/3/2011.** - **P7 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED 26/3/2011.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** **------------------------------------------WPC No.9016 of 2011 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] April, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions to respondents 2 to 7, police officers under the first respondent State, under Article 226 of the Constitution against illegal, culpable, violent and objectionable acts on the part of respondents 8 and 9. 2. The petitioner is a bank. Respondents 8 and 9 represent a section of officers of the bank. There, evidently, is a dispute between the officers on the one hand and the bank on the other. 3. The officers are showing their protest by holding demonstrations etc. According to the petitioners, respondents 8 and 9 or their members are not entitled to obstruct the peaceful and orderly running of the bank. They are not entitled to commit criminal offences against the bank. They are not entitled to obstruct ingress and WPC No.9016/2011 2 egress to and from the bank of willing workers, officers, management personnel and customers. The short prayer of the petitioner is that such obstruction may be prevented and appropriate directions may be issued to the police officials. 4. An interim order was issued on 22.3.2011. The petitioner raises a grievance that even such interim orders were not effective and did not succeed in ensuring proper and peaceful functioning of the bank. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate and strict directions may be issued now to the police officials/respondents to prevent illegal and culpable activities of respondents 8 and 9. 5. Respondents 8 and 9 have entered appearance. The learned counsel accepts that there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the officers represented by respondents 8 and 9 on the other. That the officers of the bank represented by R8 and R9 are engaged in direct action is not disputed. To a specific query by this Court, the learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 WPC No.9016/2011 3 submits that the officers represented by respondents 8 and 9 shall not obstruct the peaceful and orderly functioning of the bank. They shall not obstruct ingress and egress to/from the bank. To a specific query by this Court where respondents 8 and 9 can make that undertaking before Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel is not instructed and authorised to make such undertaking. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that there is need to issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. While the right of respondents 8 and 9 and their members to hold peaceful demonstrations and to engage themselves in agitation against the policy of the bank towards the officers deserve to be recognized, it will have to be zealously ensured that there is no illegal obstruction to the peaceful functioning of the bank. We are hence satisfied in the circumstances that directions under Article 226 deserve to be issued. 7. Reliance has been placed in **ING Vysya Bank** **Limited** v **State of Kerala and others** (2007(4) KHC WPC No.9016/2011 4 355. But we are of the opinion that that precedent does not affect the right/power/duty of this Court in appropriate cases to issue directions for police protection. In a case like the instant one, where the contesting respondents are not willing to undertaking that they shall not obstruct peaceful and orderly running of the bank, we are perfectly satisfied that the jurisdiction under Article 226 deserves to be invoked. 8. In the result, a) This petition is allowed. b) Respondents 2 to 7 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner for the peaceful and orderly functioning of the bank without any obstruction for ingress and egress to the bank by management personnel, officers, employees and customers. 9. We make it clear that these directions shall not in any way fetter the rights of respondents 8 and 9 to hold peaceful demonstration without in any way obstructing the peaceful and orderly running of the bank, as already directed. WPC No.9016/2011 5 10. Counsel for the petitioner requests us to prescribe a distance beyond which alone the peaceful demonstration can be held. In the absence of adequate material, we only direct that the peaceful demonstration must be at such distance and in such manner that the orderly and peaceful functioning of the bank and ingress and egress to/from the bank should not be obstructed in any manner. **R.BASANT JUDGE** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE** css/