IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14799 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PRASANNA PRATHABAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PRATHABAN, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, THANTHONNITHURUTH PO, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RAFEEK, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.NOT KNOWN R/A ARROKUTTY, ALLEPPEY, DOING COOL DRINKS STALL, AT MAZHAVILBRIDGE,MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. 682 031. 2. SHAFEEK, S/O.RAFFEK, AGED 18 YEARS S/O. NOT KNOWN R/A ARROKUTTY, ALLEPPEY, DOING COOL DRINKS STALL, AT MAZHAVIL BRIDGE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 3. NASEER, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED 40 YEARS, CONDUCTING MOBILE TEA STALL OF MAZHAVIL BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM 86 031. * 4. NAZAR, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O. NOT KNOWN R/A MULAVUKAD, DOING MOBILE COOL DRINKS STALL MAZHAVIL BRIDGE,MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM.682 031.(DELETED) tss W.P.(C) NO.14799/2011 *R4 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DTD. 8.6.2011 IN WPC. 5. C.I.OF POLICE, CENTRAL (PS) ERNAKULAM. 6. ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE LAW & ORDER, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.D.G.VIPIN, SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY. R5 & R6 BU GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.14799/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.12.2008 IN WP.(C) 37676/08. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 16.2.2009 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.D 18.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.14799 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 5 and 6 - police officials to afford police protection to the petitioner against any illegal, contumacious and culpable acts on the part of respondents 1 to 3, who are obstructing the petitioner carrying on the business of mobile cool drinks vending. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to run such business activity and respondents 1 to 4 are raising unjustified obstruction to such running of business by him. 4th respondent has been subsequently deleted from the array of parties. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance. It is pointed out that the real name of the second respondent is Ranees and not Shafeek. However, counsel appearing for the second respondent has entered appearance for the second respondent also as the second respondent is the son W.P.(C).NO.14799 OF 2011 : 2 : of the first respondent. 3. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that respondents 1 to 3 have not been raising any illegal obstructions against the running of the business by the petitioner and they have no intention whatsoever to cause any such obstruction. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 also submits that respondent No.2 is a student and he is not running any business. He further submits that respondent No.2 has requisite licence from the GCDA as is seen from Ext.R1(b). 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials also there is no threat to the running of the business by the petitioner by respondents 1 to 3. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 3 are carrying on business without getting any requisite permits and licences from the authorities. The mobile cart business run by them are causing obstruction to the traffic and police have been requested by the GCDA to take action against them. In these circumstances, according to the learned Government W.P.(C).NO.14799 OF 2011 : 3 : Pleader, this appears to be an attempt by the petitioner to legitimise the activity that is undertaken by him without any licence. 5. No licence has been produced by the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that they have requisite licences issued by the GCDA to carry on such activity of running mobile cool drink business. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 order has already been passed by another Bench of this Court directing unconditional release of the push cart owned by him seized by the respondent therein i.e, the GCDA. 6. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that they do not intend to cause any obstruction to the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We do observe that by this order we do not intend to fetter any legal action that may be taken by the authorities against the petitioner or respondents 1 to 3 for running their business activity without requisite licences from the authorities. We are W.P.(C).NO.14799 OF 2011 : 4 : satisfied that no specific direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need be issued. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl