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 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28469 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MARY'S HOTELS (P) LTD., THARAYASSERIL BUILDING, NEAR YMCA, THIRUVALLA-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.O.ABRAHAM. 2. T.O.ABRAHAM, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, THURUTHICAUD P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686101. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686531. 4. KOTTAYAM JILLA SHOP AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), BMS OFFICE, T.B.JUNCTION, M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, N.M.RADHAKRISHNAN. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER FOR R1 TO 3 ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28469 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim, J. The first petitioner is a company incorporated, running a Hotel and Resort under the name and style “Windsor Castle & Lake Village Resort” situated on the side of M.C.Road at Kottayam. The second petitioner is its Managing Director. The petitioners are seeking directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection to remove the shed put up by the 4th respondent in the road-margin, in front of the petitioners' Hotel and to remove the 4th respondent and its men to any permissible place, at least 500 M: away from the petitioners' Hotel. Inter alia the petitioners are seeking directions to prevent staging of demonstrations either inside or outside the premises of the Hotel. 2. Averments are to the effect that, due to serious W.P.(C).28469/11 -2- misconduct, the petitioner issued memo to six workers in the Hotel on 15.11.2010, seeking explanation. After conducting domestic enquiry the delinquent employees were dismissed from service finding them guilty of the misconduct attributed. Thereupon the 4th respondent started creating threat to the existing staff of the Hotel and also to its Directors. They planned an illegal strike within the premises of the Hotel. The petitioner thereupon filed WP(C).37658/10 before this court and through Ext.P1 the said writ petition was disposed of confirming an interim order granted to the effect of affording police protection. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that from 22.10.2011 onwards, members of the 4th respondent union had put up a 'shamiyana' at the very entrance of the petitioners' Hotel on the margin of public road and started showering abuses obstructing the customers coming to the Hotel. It is further stated that a mob of around 50 persons trespassed into the Hotel on 22.10.2011 at 2.00 p.m. armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the customers and W.P.(C).28469/11 -3- employees of the Hotel and also destroyed and caused damages to the Bar and other premises. It is also alleged that they have committed theft of money amounting to Rs.1 lakh from the cash counter and two cars belonging to the customers, parked in the Hotel were also destroyed. On the basis of complaint submitted, Ext.P3 criminal case was registered by the 3rd respondent. At present the members of the 4th respondent are indulging in rampant acts of vandalism under the guise of the strike by sitting at the entrance of the Hotel in the 'shamiyana' put up. It is complained that whenever a guest comes into the Hotel, the members of the 4th respondent walks out of the 'shamiyana' and abuses such guests. Due to the illegal, highhanded and offensive attitude, the petitioners have reached at a stage where they could not conduct business in the Hotel in any peaceful manner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that, the 4th respondent is conducting only peaceful agitation protesting against illegal dismissal of the W.P.(C).28469/11 -4- employees and also protesting against the action of the management in implicating members of the 4th respondent in criminal cases. According to them, thy are not obstructing the ingress and egress of willing employees or guests coming to the Hotel. The respondents have disputed the narrations regarding the alleged incident. It is further alleged that the petitioner and their henchmen have illegally and unlawfully demolished the 'shamiyana' put up on the pathway leading to the Hotel on a purampoke land. It is contended that there is ample distance from M.C.Road to the gate of the Hotel and there is enough space between the road-margin and boundary wall of the Hotel. According to the 4th respondent the 'Pandhal' is put up without any obstruction to the ingress and egress of the 2nd respondent, willing employees or guests or any other persons to the compound of the Hotel. Hence there is no necessity to grant police protection, is the contention. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that, with respect to the W.P.(C).28469/11 -5- incident of causing damage a criminal case as Crime No.755/11 of Chingavanam police station has been registered against members of the 4th respondent union, on 22.10.2011. The accused were arrested and released on bail, is the submission. 6. Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn our attention to the provisions contained in Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, 2011, as well as to the decision rendered by this court in Antony Vs. Superintendent of Police (2011 (3) KLT 361). It is noticed that, interpreting the literal meaning of the definitions contained in the above said statute, this court held that prohibition under Section 4 of the Act will apply to 'public way' including 'foot path' and 'road-margin'. It is further held that putting up of any shed or structure either temporary or permanent at any such places for the purpose of business, meeting, assembly, procession or demonstration could not be permitted. The legal position remaining settled as above, we are of the W.P.(C).28469/11 -6- considered opinion that it is for the appropriate authority to take actions to remove the shed put up in front of the petitioners' Hotel which is situated in the foot path or road- margin or any part of the public road. We consider that permitting such 'Pandhal' to remain in any part of the public way and also permitting the members of the 4th respondent to have demonstration in such place will offend the provisions of above said statute and the concerned officials shall not remain as silent spectators to such violation of law. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances we dispose of this writ petition directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection by deploying sufficient number of police in order to ensure smooth conduct of the business activities in the petitioners' Hotel, from being not obstructed in any manner by the 4th respondent, their members and henchmen. Respondents 1 to 3 will take effective steps to remove the 'Shamiyana (Pandhal)' put up in front of the petitioners' Hotel, if it is convinced that such structure is situated on any part of the W.P.(C).28469/11 -7- public way including foot path or road-margin. 8. We make it clear that the directions given as above is not in any manner prohibiting the 4th respondent to have peaceful agitations based on the labour dispute, if any existing, in any manner which will not offend any provisions of the relevant statute or in any manner violating any law. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb