Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to grant police protection to the petitioner and members of his union to have Exhibit P1 passed by the second respondent implemented.
2. Case of the petitioner, who is stated as convener of INTUC, Kattapana Unit, is that the loading and unloading work in the particular area has been allowed to be performed by the members of various unions pursuant to the proceedings at the initiative of the second respondent, a copy of which is produced and marked as Exhibit P1. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of specific understanding to have the area of work earmarked, respondents 3 to 5 herein are not paying any attention to the same and that they are taking law into their own hands obstructing to the smooth functioning of the work in the area. This made the petitioner to approach the first respondent by WP(C).14592/14 2 filing Exhibit P2 and then rush to this court by filing the Writ Petition seeking police protection.
3. On going through the averments in the Writ Petition and after hearing both the parties, it is seen that the issue is with regard to the right of work in a scheme covered area. When the petitioner contends that the issue is covered by Exhibit P1 issued by the second respondent, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the second respondent by filing necessary petition to have the same implemented or to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum for implementation of Exhibit P1.
4. Since no specific instance of lapse on the part of the police in discharging statutory duty contemplated either under Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 29 of the Kerala Police Act is made out, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move other appropriate forum for getting Exhibit P1 implemented, if it still stands.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
vgs11.6.14
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE