IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17926 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MESSRS.RELIANCE FRESH LIMITED 29/1338. CHANDRIKA CHAMBERS S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN 682 019. AND HAVING ITS STORE AT XXI/49 GROUND FLOOR MAMPILLY TOWER, VARAPUZHA-PARAVOOR ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE N.PARUR POLICE STATION, N.PARUR. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE N.PARUR POLICE STATION, N.PARUR. 4. KERALA VYPARI VYVASSAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI VYPAR BHVAN, CHENDAMANGALAM KAVALA, 8/118 NORTH PARAVOOR REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY. 5. PARUR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION VYPAR BHAVAN, CHENDAMANGALAM KAVALA, 8/118 NORTH PARAVOOR REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. . 6. DEMOCRATIC YOUTH FEDERATION OF INDIA (DYFI) KANARAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, CPI (M) NORTH PARAVOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. SAMARA SAMITHI CONVENOR, COUNCILLOR PARUR MUNICIPALITY, NORTH PARUR. WPC 17926/08 8. SOLIDARITY, CHENDAMANGALAM KAVALA NORTH PARAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R. SHENOY FOR R5 SRI.K.J.NASARUL ASLAM - R8 SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL [ R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 17926/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DATED 11.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PARAVUR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF THE LICENCE FEE. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED ON 19.4.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED ON 10.5.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 28.4.2008. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 11.6.2008. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN OP NO.461/2008 DT. 3.6.2008. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN APPEAL NO.505/2007 D. 9.1.2008. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.7431/2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17926 OF 2008-H ----------------------------------------- Dated 24th June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a company, which proposes to start a retail outlet for the sale of provisions and consumer goods in North Paravur. It submits, it has the necessary licences for running the same. The store was inaugurated on 19.4.2008. On that day, there was a massive demonstration before the store under the leadership of respondents 4 to 8, which practically crippled its functioning. The protesters indulged in violence and therefore, a crime was registered by the police. Because of the obstruction, the store could not be opened. Another attempt was made on 9.5.2008, to start the functioning of the store. On that day also, there was violence under the leadership of respondents 4 to 8. Again the police registered a crime. Though representations were filed before the police for protection for running the store, no effective steps were taken by them. Therefore, this writ petition is filed, mainly, seeking the following relief: WPC 17926/08 2 “A. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate protection to the conduct of business by the petitioner at the premises bearing building No.XXI/146, 147, 148 and 149, Ground Floor, Mampilly Tower, Varapuzha- Paravoor Road, North Paravoor, to the life of its employees and the articles kept in the shop and generally to enable smooth conduct of business operations without hindrance or obstruction from respondents 4 to 8 or any persons acting under them or acting at their behest.” 2. The 5th respondent Parur Merchants' Association submitted that its members are holding only peaceful demonstrations and public meetings to protest against the incursion of monopolies into retail trade. Their presence in the field will affect the business of the members of the Association. So, to safeguard their interest, these meetings and dharnas are organized in a peaceful manner. The allegations of violence etc., are unfounded. The President of the Association has been made an accused in one of the crimes unnecessarily, even though he was nowhere near the scene of occurrence. It is also submitted on behalf of the 5th respondent that the petitioner is engaging retired police officers, as its security guards. In fact, they are threatening the demonstrators and if police protection is ordered, with the support of the police, they will manhandle the people of the locality, who are holding only peaceful demonstrations. 3. The 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner and contending that its members are only WPC 17926/08 3 holding peaceful demonstrations to protest against the entry of monopolies into retail trade. 4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that as and when information was lodged regarding the commission of cognizable offence before the police, crimes were registered. It is also submitted that the protesters are only holding peaceful demonstrations and public meetings. 5. Under our constitutional scheme, the petitioner, like any other person, has the right to run a business. If its business flourishes, it will affect the business of others. But, the affected persons cannot physically obstruct the functioning of the store run by the petitioner. So, if there is any physical obstruction to the functioning of the store, by preventing ingress and egress, the petitioner may inform the 3rd respondent. In that event, the 3rd respondent shall remove the obstruction. But,the police shall not interfere with the peaceful demonstrations, dharnas or meetings organized by respondents 4 to 8 or other persons objecting to the petitioner's entry into retail trade. They have also a fundamental right to hold such demonstrations and propagate their ideas, so as to persuade the customers not to go and patronise the petitioner. If the security guards of the petitioner indulge in high-handed or criminal actions, respondents 4 to 8 can bring the same to WPC 17926/08 4 the notice of the 3rd respondent. In that event also, the 3rd respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/