P. M. Abraham and others v. Circle Inspector of Police Mannarkkad Police Station, Mannarkkad; Sub Inspector of Police Kalladicode Police Station; Centre of Indian Trade Union (CITU) Edakurissy Unit; Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) Edakurissy Unit; Centre of Indian Trade Union CITU Karimba Pallippady Unit; INTUC Karimba Pallippady Unit; Swathanthra Trade Union; Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Karimba Pallippady Unit; Centre of Indian Trade Union CITU Deepa Junction Unit; The Chairman Palakkad District Committee Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Ashok Bhushan CJ
- A.M. Shaffique J
- Judgment Date
- 2016-03-17
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of in light of the interim order dated 15 February 2016; police protection directed to permit petitioners to engage their own workers without obstruction.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of; interim protection order maintained in light of the 15 February 2016 order.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- P. M. Abraham
- Nirmala Abraham
- Sebastian Panackathottam
- Mathew Panackathottam
Respondents
- The Circle Inspector of Police Mannarkkad Police Station, Mannarkkad, Palakkad District
- The Sub Inspector of Police Kalladicode Police Station, T.B Junction Kalladicode, Palakkad
- Centre of Indian Trade Union CITU Edakurissy Unit, Karimba P.O, Mannarkkad Palakkad
- Indian National Trade Union Congress INTUC Edakurissy Unit, Karimba P.O, Mannarkkad Palakkad
- Centre of Indian Trade Union CITU Karimba Pallippady Unit, Karimba P.O, Mannarkkad Palakkad
- Indian National Trade Union Congress INTUC Karimba Pallippady Unit, Karimba P.O, Mannarkkad Palakkad
- Swathanthra Trade Union STU Karimba Pallippady Unit, Karimba P.O, Mannarkkad Palakkad
- Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Karimba Pallippady Unit, Karimba P.O, Mannarkkad Palakkad
- Centre of Indian Trade Union CITU Deepa Junction Unit Kalladicode P.O, Mannarkkad, Palakkad
- The Chairman Palakkad District Committee Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board Palakkad - 1
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. V.M. Kurian
- • Sri. Mathew B. Kurian
- • Sri. K.T. Thomas
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sr. Government Pleader, Sri C.R. Syam Kumar
- • Sri T.C. Suresh Menon
- • Sri P.S. Appu
- • Sri A.R. Nimod
- • Sri V.E. Abdul Gafoor, SC, KHWWB
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition by petitioners P. M. Abraham, Nirmala Abraham, Sebastian Panackathottam, and Mathew Panackathottam seeks police protection to allow them to engage their own workers for loading and unloading at their business premises in Karimba. The petitioners assert that the area is not a scheme-covered area, so private respondents have no right to demand loading/unloading by others. When obstruction occurred, they approached police; interim protection was granted on 15 February 2016 directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarkkad, and the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalladicode, to provide protection for the petitioners’ workers. Respondents counter that the petitioners are not entitled to engage workers without identity cards under Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, and that the application was withdrawn, suggesting police protection would amount to illegal activity. The court held that since the area is not scheme-covered, respondents 3–9 cannot obstruct petitioners. It relied on Nijamudeen v. City Police Commissioner to clarify the legal position and distinguished Karunakarakurup v. State of Kerala, stating Karunakarakurup does not apply here. The petition is disposed of in light of the interim order, underscoring the police’s duty to maintain law and order irrespective of card status in such circumstances.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the area is not a scheme-covered area and private respondents have no right to demand loading and unloading by any party; they seek police protection to enable them to engage their own workers for loading/unloading at their premises; they had approached police and obtained an interim protection.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the area is not a scheme-covered area; petitioners are not entitled to engage workers unless they possess identity cards registered under Rule 26A(3) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules; the petitioners’ earlier application was withdrawn, suggesting police protection would lead to illegal activity.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karunakarakurup v. State of Kerala | 2002 (2) KLT 776 | Distinguished | The court states that Karunakarakurup’s judgment has no application to the present facts. |
| Nijamudeen v. City Police Commissioner | 2011 (3) KLT 268 | Positive | Cited as clarifying the position of law; used to support the conclusion and to distinguish Karunakarakurup. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. M. Abraham and others v. Circle Inspector of Police Mannarkkad Police Station, Mannarkkad; Sub Inspector of Police Kalladicode Police Station; Centre of Indian Trade Union (CITU) Edakurissy Unit; Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) Edakurissy Unit; Centre of Indian Trade Union CITU Karimba Pallippady Unit; INTUC Karimba Pallippady Unit; Swathanthra Trade Union; Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Karimba Pallippady Unit; Centre of Indian Trade Union CITU Deepa Junction Unit; The Chairman Palakkad District Committee Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.