IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6204 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SHAMSUDDIN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, KOLANGARAKATH, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. HUSSAIN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, PULICHARAM VEETIL, PAVARATTY AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR - 673 014. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 507. 4. PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.PAVARATTY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY - 680 507. 5. GOPI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PANIKKASSERY VEETTIL, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, BRAHMAKULAM AMSOM DESOM, KAKKASSERY POST, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 511. -2- WP(C)NO.6204/2011 6. NOUSHAD, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, NALAKATH KOOLIYIL, ELAVALLY VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 507. 7. SHAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN, KORATT KIZHAKKATHIL, PUTHUMANASSERY, PAVARATTY POST - 680 507. 8. SHAKKER, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KHALID, NALAKATH KOOLLIYIL, PAVARATTY AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 507. * ADDL.R9 & R10 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R9: SHAJEELA DARMARAJ, AGED 35, W/O.DARMARAJ, MOOKOLA HOUSE, P.O. VENMANAD, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R10: SATHEESAN PALLARA, PALLARA HOUSE, P.O. PAVARATTY, THRISSUR. * ADDL.R9 & R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/3/2011 IN IA.NO.4725/2011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 BY ADV.SRI.JOICE GEORGE R7 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.6204/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE LICENCE FEE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 21/12/2010. P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE LICENCE FEE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 21/12/2010. P5 COPY OF THE LICENCE BEARING NUMBER 344/10-11 DATED 30/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P6 COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 04/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P7 COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NUMBER C1-9383/10 DATED 10/12/2010. P8 COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.C1-9383/10 DATED 21/12/2010. P9 COPY OF THE REQUEST BEARING NO.93832/11 DATED 05/02/11 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R8(A) COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IA NO.619 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.138 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 24/2/2011. R8(B) COPY OF THE PUBLIC NEWS DATED 17/12/2010. P8(C) COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DATED 27/11/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** I.A.No.4725 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.6204 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Heard. Allowed. Additional respondents 9 and 10 are impleaded. W.P(c) No.6204 of 2011 Petitioners have come to this Court for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to oblige them to afford police protection to the petitioners against illegal obstruction raised by respondents 5 to 8 against the conduct of fish vending business carried on in the premises which are leased/licenced to them by the 4th respondent Panchayat. 2. According to the petitioners, they have obtained right to carry on fish vending business in the building constructed by the 4th respondent Panchayat. They have obtained such rights after competitive bidding. According to them, they have paid all the amounts due to the 4th respondent panchayat. It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondents 5 to 8, who had not W.P(C) No.6204 of 2011 2 succeeded in getting premises leased/licenced to them by the Panchayat, are raising illegal obstruction against the peaceful and orderly conduct of the business run by the petitioners in the two rooms leased/licenced to them by the Panchayat. The petitioners complained to the Panchayat. The Panchayat in turn has addressed Exts.P7 to P9 complaints to the police officials. But in spite of such complaints, no action is being taken as the police are obliged to under Section 252 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court with this petition. 3. Interim orders were issued on 08.03.2011. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, and the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said interim order is being implemented scrupulously now. 4. The 4th respondent Pavaratty Grama Panchayat has entered appearance through a counsel. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent has given rights to the petitioners to carry on fish vending business in 2 of the 14 rooms in a market complex constructed by the Panchayat. The Panchayat raises no grievance of non payment of amounts W.P(C) No.6204 of 2011 3 due by the petitioners to the Panchayat. In short, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Panchayat supports the claim of the petitioners and asserts that in spite of Exts.P7 to P9 complaints made by the Panchayat to the police officials, no proper action had been taken as required under Section 252 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 5. Respondents 5 to 8 have entered appearance through a counsel. They are admittedly fish vendors. According to them, the Panchayat had constructed rooms in a 5 cents plot for the purpose of accommodating all the fish vendors. But unfortunately 10 of the 14 rooms have been given to chicken and meat vendors. Of the remaining 4 rooms, 2 remain unoccupied and two such rooms have been given to the the petitioners to carry on business of fish vending. According to respondents 5 to 8, in the absence of water and electricity connection, the two remaining rooms cannot be made use of for the purpose of fish vending. That even the rooms allotted to the petitioners are also similarly placed, is not disputed. 6. Additional respondents 9 and 10 are members of the Panchayat. They belong to the opposition group, it is submitted. According to respondents 5 to 8 as also respondents 9 and 10, W.P(C) No.6204 of 2011 4 the petitioners are in arrears and have not paid amounts to the Panchayat. We think it unnecessary to go into that dispute in any greater detail. The 4th respondent asserts that no amount is in arrears. If amounts are in arrears, it is for the 4th respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioners as stipulated in the lease/licence agreements or in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. In these circumstances, the alleged arrears on the part of the petitioners in payment of amounts to the grama panchayat is not reckoned by us as relevant to the issue involved in this case. 7. Respondents 5 to 8 contend, and respondents 9 and 10 support them, that other fish vendors of the Panchayat are now without any source of livelihood. Petitioners 1 and 2 are permitted to carry on business in the said two rooms. The other 2 rooms are, according to them, not fit for carrying on the business. Panchayat has introduced a ban on fish vending at other centres and on the sides of the road. In these circumstances, employees like respondents 5 to 8 are unable to pursue their income earning activity, it is contended. They have, along with the counter affidavits filed by them, produced Ext.R8(c) which shows a ban on carrying on the business of fish/meat vending at the centres or by the side of the W.P(C) No.6204 of 2011 5 roads. Respondents 9 and 10 raise a further grievance that the activity at the newly constructed building of fish/meat vending is being carried on under extremely unhygienic conditions. 8. This petition is for police protection. Petitioners 1 and 2 complain that they are not permitted to carry on business in the premises taken on lease/licence by them from the Panchayat. The Panchayat has complained to the police to ensure police protection for the petitioners to carry on business at the premises leased/licenced to them. If respondents 5 to 8 have any grievance against the ban on fish vending as revealed by Ext.R8 (c), it is certainly for them to take necessary steps to challenge the same. 2 rooms similar to the ones leased/licenced to the petitioners are available and respondents 5 to 8 do not appear to be interested in securing possession/permission of the same to conduct the business. 9. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner for police protection is justified. We are satisfied that the interim order issued on 08.03.2011 can be made absolute and this petition can be allowed. 10. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; W.P(C) No.6204 of 2011 6 b) The interim order dated 08.03.2011 is made absolute. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioners to carry on their business of fish vending in the two rooms allotted to them by the Panchayat peacefully without any objection/obstruction from respondents 5 to 8; c) We make it clear that these directions will not in any way fetter the rights of the Panchayat to take appropriate steps to recover amounts if any due from the petitioners or the rights of respondents 5 to 8 to challenge Ext.R8(c) notice in accordance with law. It will also not fetter the rights of respondents 9 and 10 or any other to complain of and take necessary legal action about the alleged unhygienic conditions in which the market now runs. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/