IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4921 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ST.MARY'S HOTELS PVT.LTD., KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.O.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 3. T.O.ALIAS, S/O.KURUVILA UNNITHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. 4. GIGY KURIAKOSE, S/O.T.O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, THURUTHIKAD P.O., MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. ABRAHAM BABY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.T.O.BABY, MARY SADANAM, THURUTHIKKAD P.O., MALAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.4921/08 PETIITONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15-1-07 OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN IA NOS.2 & 3 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3446/2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-07-2007 OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3446/2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF SRI.P.S.SUNEESH ISSUED BY ETTUMANOOR AREA AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVERS UNION (CITU). EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.463/2007 DATED 20-11-2007 REGISTERED BY CHINGAVANAM POLICE STTION. EXT.P4(A): TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTED 23-11-2007 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 23-11-2007 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27-11-2007 OF COURT OF SESSIONS, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, IN CRL MP NO.2911/2007. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTED 08-02-2008 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTED 8-2-2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.77/2008 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION DATED 16.2.2008. EXT.R4(B): DO NO.76/2008 OF DO. DT. 16.2.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE ttb THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.4921 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P7 challenged in this writ petition is an action taken by the Sub Inspector of Police on 8.2.2008 under the second paragraph of Section 54 of the Abkari Act. The existence of power to issue an order for closure of a shop if riot or unlawful assembly is apprehended or occurs in the vicinity of the shop, cannot be challenged in view of the clear provisions in the second paragraph to Section 54. But the closure can be only for such purpose as may be necessary in terms of that provision. The impugned order was issued on 8.2.2008. The officer who issued Ext.P7, viz. the first respondent, has filed a counter affidavit on 20.2.2008, asserting that the fact situation available while Ext.P7 was issued called for the issuance of such an order. 2. The private parties to this litigation are before the Apex Court in an appeal against the judgment of this Court in relation to their disputes touching the business of the hotel. The private WPC.4921/08 Page numbers respondents herein, viz. T.O.Elias and others, are the appellants before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3446/06. A certified copy of the order issued on 27.2.208 in that case has been placed before me. On I.A.8/08, the Apex Court has passed an order restraining the appellants (T.O.Elias and others) from interfering with the affairs of the hotel. That order stands extended by order dated 4.3.2008. 3. In the light of the aforesaid interlocutory order of the Apex Court, it is beyond dispute that the appellants in the above Civil Appeal have no right to meddle with the affairs of the hotel in any manner. Therefore, they are also liable to ensure that there is no law and order situation, attributable to them. In such circumstances and with the passage of time, as of now, there could be no ground at all to continue the impugned order. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the District Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area is directed to look into the issue and ensure that the impugned Ext.P7 is recalled and that there WPC.4921/08 Page numbers would be any order under Section 54 only if the District Magistrate is satisfied that conditions are made out for the order under the first paragraph of Section 54. This shall be done within a period of two days for the receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. The District Magistrate shall ensure that the restraint orders passed by the Apex Court and any further orders that are passed thereon are scrupulously obeyed and the command of the Apex Court runs. The writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the contentions of parties. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.