IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23rd OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27155 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.HARIDAS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 52 YEARS, 'SREEHARI' KAVUNGAL, MALAPPURAM LICENSE,, HOTEL ERNAD INN, VARANKODE,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALAPPURAM. 5. MACHINGAL BASHEER S/O.LATE MACHINGAL MUHAMMAD MUSALIAR,MACHINGAL, MELMURI PO, MALAPPURAM, SECRETARY, MUSLIM YOUTH LEAGUE, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE. 6. KONNALA YOUSUF, KONNALA HOUSE DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, SECRETARY MUSLIM LEAGUE, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE. 7. O.P.HUSSAIN, OTHUKKUPARA HOUSE MUNDUPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM. 8. HARIS AMIYAN COUNCILLOR, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY AMIYAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHALA, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM. 9. P.UBAIDULLAH, SECRETARY MUSLIM LEAGUE NIYOJAKAMANDALAM COMMITTEE ANAKKAYAM, MANJERI. 10. KADERI ABDUL AZEEZ, KADERI HOUSE ALATHUR PADI, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL FOR R5,6,8-10 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.27155/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE FL-3 LICENSE ISSUED ON 2-6-2009 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8-7-2009. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.21479/09 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 21-9-2009 SHOWING THE PROCESSION. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19-9-2009 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRY MADE BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MALAPPURAM WHILE CONDUCTING PERIODICAL INSPECTIONS. EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS FROM THE VISITOR'S BOOK OF THE HOTEL. EXT.P9. TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORTS APPEARED IN 'CHANDRIKA' DAILY DATED 12-10-2009. EXT.P10. TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN 'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY DATED 12-10-2009. EXT.P11. TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORTS APPEARED IN 'THEJUS' DAILY DATED 13-10-2009. EXT.P12. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.445/2009 EXDT.P13. TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SURGEON, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM IN RESPECT OF SHYJU.R. EXT.P14. TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SURGEON, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM IN RESPECT OF SANOOP. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.446/2009 DATED 11-10-2009 OF THE MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION. EXT.R5(g) TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AGITATORS ASSEMBLED FOR MEETING OF THE ACTION COMMITTEE. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27155 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. This writ petition seeking police protection for the smooth conduct of a bar hotel was finally heard on 16-10-2009 and we had dictated the judgment in open court. However, on going through the records and before signing the judgment, we found that the limit of 200 metres noted by us was on account of an inadvertent error in noting the statement made by the Police. Therefore, we have suo motu recalled the judgment and the writ petition is heard afresh today. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions directing respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner to enable him to conduct the hotel business peacefully without any interference by respondents 5-10 or their henchmen. ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1-4 to deny permission to respondents 5-10 or their W.P(C).No.27155 of 2009 -:2:- henchmen to conduct a dharna or procession within a radius of 200 metres from the entrance of the hotel. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 10 submits that there is no unlawful obstruction caused to the petitioner or the workers or the customers. The public have formed an action committee against the functioning of a bar hotel in the locality and the members of the action committee are only engaged in peaceful agitation. It is also submitted that the members of the public belong to prohibition movement and they are only discharging their constitutional obligation so as to effectively implement the directive principles as enshrined in the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 further submits that because of the functioning of the bar hotel, the law abiding citizens in the locality are not in a position to lead a peaceful life owing to the illegal activities of the drunkards. If they have any such complaint, it is for them to approach the Police and the Police will ensure that the customers to the hotel do not in any way interfere with the peaceful life of the people of the locality. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner however, submits that the bar hotel is conducted only as per the licence issued and unless he is able to conduct the business he will not be in a position to pay the licence fee and other dues to the State. That the public has a right to W.P(C).No.27155 of 2009 -:3:- record their protest cannot be disputed. But that right shall not reach the level of interfering with the business lawfully conducted by the petitioner. The agitation should also have been against the authorities who gave the licence. Be that as it may, we find from the statement of respondents 1 and 2 that the Police have taken effective steps to prevent any breach of peace in the locality. 3. In the above circumstances we make it clear that the people of the locality are free to conduct their peaceful agitation but the same shall only be beyond 50 metres from the compound wall of the bar hotel. However, such agitations shall not be conducted in such a way as to obstruct the movement of employees or the customers. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.27155 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 23rd October, 2009