IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17631 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NAZAR, S/O.HALIDH, PULINCHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, HOSPITAL ROAD, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 17631 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE FOR CONDUCTING THE SHOP ISSUED BY THE NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17631 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. Grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the respondents 2 and 3 are causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner in conducting a hotel business at Nedumangadu in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is the complaint that, the respondents 2 and 3 are unnecessarily stepping into the hotel during night, after 10 P.M. and asking the petitioner to close down the shop. The petitioner made Ext.P2 representation before the 1st respondent complaining about the illegal actions of respondents 2 and 3. But no steps has been taken on the basis of Ext.P2. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. On 7.7.2011, when the matter was taken up for consideration the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that, there were instances on which the petitioner was seen engaged in selling of liquor in 2 W.P.(C) No.17631 of 2011 the hotel premises. It is also stated that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner as Crime No.506 of 2011 at Nedumangadu Police station for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of IPC, with respect to an assault committed in the premises of the Hotel. Learned counsel for the petitioner had refuted the allegations regarding sale of liquor in the Hotel. On the other hand, it was contended that, the respondents 2 and 3 are insisting closing of the Hotel at 10 P.M. only in the case of the petitioner and that other tea shops and Hotels were permitted to conduct business till mid-night. On the basis of such contention this Court directed the Government Pleader to get further instructions on the said aspect. 3. Learned Government Pleader on further instructions submitted that, the petitioner is conducting a restaurant under the name and style as 'City restaurant' at Nedumangadu and in the first floor of the building there are few rooms. It is stated that there occurred an incident of the servants of the hotel and other men consuming liquor after 9 P.M. and throwing empty bottles to the properties of one 3 W.P.(C) No.17631 of 2011 Shri.Nizam, a neighbouring resident. With respect to this, there occurred an alteration and assault, for which a case was registered on the basis of complaint of the said Shri.Nizam. It is conceded that on the basis of complaint of the petitioner another case was also registered against the above said Shri.Nizam and both the cases are under investigation. It is further stated that both the accused were arrested and produced before the Magistrate Court. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that the instructions received from the 3rd respondent is to the effect that, a lot of anti social elements and criminals are gathering in the locality of the shop and the petitioner and their workmen are causing nuisance to the public and neighbours of the locality, during late hours in the night, and the police had to visit the place on the basis of informations received on so many occasions. In view of the situation being worsened, the police authorities had given strict warning to the petitioner to shut the doors of the Hotel by 10 P.M., on everyday. It is apprehended that if the petitioner is permitted to conduct business during late hours in the night, it will create law and order situation which could 4 W.P.(C) No.17631 of 2011 not be controlled on a regular basis. It is also mentioned that it is the practice in the area that all the shops will be closed by 10 P.M. during night, and that strict instructions have been given by the police authorities to all the shop owners in this regard. It is stated that no discrimination in this regard is shown to the hotel business of the petitioner. 4. From the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions raised it is revealed that, the respondents 2 and 3 are not taking any action of harassment against the petitioner. But they are only taking reasonable steps to control law and order situation in the area during late hours in the night, in and around Nedumangad town. However, we are of the considered opinion that respondents 2 and 3 should not discriminate the petitioner in any manner with respect to the conduct of the Hotel business during the night time. If there is any illegal activity or any action causing threat to law and order situation, then the respondents 2 and 3 can intervene and take appropriate legal actions. The petitioner shall not be forced to close down the shop by 10 o' clock, if all other Tea Shops and Hotels are permitted to run their shops during late 5 W.P.(C) No.17631 of 2011 hours. It is necessary in the interest of justice that the petitioner should abide by reasonable restrictions if any imposed by respondents 2 and 3 with respect to conduct of business activities in the shop. However, if there is any discriminative action of harassment, the petitioner will be at liberty to point out the same before appropriate higher authorities in the Police Department. Needless to observe that if any such complaint is received, the appropriate authority shall look into the same and should conduct necessary enquiry and take appropriate action. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/