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. 7107 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.K.SUBRAMANIYAN,S/O. KANNANKERAN KUNJAN SUKRA, VADANAPPALLY.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD. PIN-680614. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION,VADANAPPALLY-680614. 3. KUMARAN, S/O. KALLAYIL KANOTHI, KALLAYIL HOUSE,VADANAPPALLY-680614. 4. THOBIYAS, S/O. NELLISSERY PORINJU, NELLISSERRY HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY-680614. 5. SASI, S/O. KALAKODUVATHU VELAPPAN, KALAKODUVATHU HOUSE,VADANAPPALLY-680614. R3-R BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.7107/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE OPETITONER ON 12.1.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICTE ISSUED BY HEALTH INSPECTOR , VADANAPPALLY TO THE PETITINER ON 26/2/2011. P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PANCHAYATH ON 26.2.2011 ACCEPTING LICENCE FEE FOR 2011-2012. P4:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 20.1.2011. P5:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 20.1.2011. P6:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT ON 20.1.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 25.1.2011. P8:- NIL P9:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENCE DTD. 29.3.2010 PREFERED BY THE PETITIONER. P10:- COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HEALTH INSPECTOR VATANAPALLY DTD. 11.2.2010. P11:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD ON 20.5.2010 IN IA. NO.1796/2010 IN OS. 375/2010. P12:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT , COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, VATANAPALLY. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 4967/2010 DTD. 21.11.2010. P14:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN IA.6151/2010 IN OS. NO.1027/2010. P15:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER PROVIDING DETAILS OF R3(e) LETTER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 4.9.2010 FROM THE SECRETRY OF VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SUTHARYA KERALAM. tss W.P.(C) NO.7107/2011 R3(b):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.D 20.12.2010 FROM SUPERINTENDENT, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R3(c):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.D 4.11.2010 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, VADANAPPALLY TO THE SECRETARY, VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R3(d):- COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH SUBMTITED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD IN OS. 375/2010. R3(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31.12.2010 FROM THE SECRETARY, VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7107 of 2011-K ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner for the peaceful conduct of his business of running a wholesale out let of fish. The petitioner has obtained requisite licence under Ext.P1. Respondents 3 to 5 are local persons who allegedly are raising illegal obstruction against the running of the petitioner's business. They have no legal right to raise any such objection. The business shall be run by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and without causing any unjustifiable nuisance to any other. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions may be issued. 2. Respondents 3 to 5 have entered appearance. It is conceded that two suits - one filed by the petitioner and the other against the petitioner, are pending. In the suit filed by the W.P.(c) No.7107 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner, Ext.P11 interim order has admittedly been passed by the civil court permitting the petitioner to carry on his business. In the suit filed by respondents 3 to 5, though an application for interim order was filed, no interim orders have so far been passed in favour of respondents 3 to 5. The licence granted under Ext.P1 has not been challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. According to respondents 3 to 5, they intend to raise a challenge against Ext.P1 licence before the Tribunal immediately. Ombudsman for Local Self Government has already been moved by respondents 3 to 5. The Ombudsman has not passed any orders so far. Respondents 3 to 5 apprehend that the running of the wholesale business of fish in the property in question is likely to result in hazards to environment. In these circumstances, it is prayed that police protection may not be granted to the petitioner. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note that the petitioner has been duly licenced to run business under Ext.P1. We further note that even though respondents 3 to 5 have the right to challenge Ext.P1, they or any other have not challenged Ext.P1 licence so far in accordance with law. Though matters are pending before the civil court and before the Ombudsman, admittedly no interim orders are there in favour of W.P.(c) No.7107 of 2011 -: 3 :- respondents 3 to 5. Further, it is admitted that Ext.P11 interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner by the civil court. 4, We do not, in these circumstances, find any justifiable basis for the obstruction by respondents 3 to 5. We are hence satisfied that orders for police protection can be granted to the petitioner. 5. We may, however, hasten to observe that the order of police protection shall be subject to the challenge against Ext.P1, if any, before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions; orders, if any, to be passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and orders, if any, to be passed by the civil court in the suit filed by respondents 3 to 5. We make it clear further that if the actual running of the business by the petitioner results in any hazards to environment, the right of respondents 3 to 5 to seek appropriate relief from the authorities/courts shall also stand unfettered by this judgment. 6. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to run his business as enabled by W.P.(c) No.7107 of 2011 -: 4 :- Ext.P1 licnece against any unlawful obstruction by respondents 3 to 5. 7. We make it clear that this direction for police protection is subject to observations made above. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge