IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 49 of 2008 ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35576/2007 Dated 10/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- KORA ABRAHAM, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE KORA, CHEOLIKKAL HOUSE, PADINJATTINKARA P.O KADAPLAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 571. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM. 5. SUB INSPECOR OF POLICE, AYIRKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 6. SASIDHARAN NAIR, POOVAKUZHY VEEDU, PARAMPUZHA,THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 7. HARI, PANCHAYAT MEMBER, WARD NO.XV, KOTTAYAM. 8. JIJI, KRISHNA HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA, THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 9. THANKAMMA KESAVAN, AMBALUVALEL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 10. K.B. SOBHANA, IRUKAVALA VEEDU, THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 11. VENU, KUZHIYATTIL VEEDU, THIRUVANCHOOR, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU. R6 TO R11 BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.49 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J.: This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35576 of 2007 dated 10th December, 2007. 2. The appellant in this writ appeal was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35576 of 2007. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had primarily called in question the orders passed by the District Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 54 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (“the Act” for short). 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the plea of the petitioner as well as the plea of the respondents has come to the conclusion that in order to maintain public peace in the locality, the District Collector has passed the impugned order and therefore his interference is not called for. However, the learned Single Judge has reserved liberty to the petitioner, if he so desires, to approach the District Collector with an appropriate petition to reconsider his order in view of the changed circumstances, if any. The order so passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of this writ appeal. 4. The petitioner had approached this court on several occasions. This court has passed appropriate orders taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner. 5. Sri.C.S.Manu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was no reason for the District Collector to pass the impugned order in exercise of his powers under Section 54 of the Act. Apart from that, learned counsel would contend that the appellant had been issued with a licence to conduct the toddy shop in Shop No.43/2007-08 of Thiruvanchoor in Group I of Pampady Range. W.A.49 of 2008. 2 Therefore, if there is any problem from the citizens of the locality, the police personnel should afford appropriate police protection, as directed in Ext. P4 order passed by this court and in the guise of maintaining public peace, the District Collector is not expected to pass an order to close down the business of the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. We have also perused the records produced by the learned Government Pleader. 7. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed by the respondents that a licence was given to the petitioner to conduct toddy shop in Shop No.43/2007-08 of Thiruvanchoor in Group I of Pampady Range. The people of the locality, right from day one the shop commenced its activity, were objecting to the conduct of the toddy shop. Cases and counter cases are filed by the parties before the jurisdictional police station, and those cases are pending before the learned Magistrate for consideration and decision. Keeping in view the mass petition filed and protest by the people of the locality, in order to maintain the public tranquility and peace, the learned District Magistrate has exercised his powers under Section 54 of the Act. 8. Section 54 of the Act provides for closing of shop for such period as the District Magistrate deems fit for preservation of public peace. 9. As we have already noticed that in front of the shop there was public agitation not only by the citizens of the locality but also the kudumbasree people. The learned Magistrate has also taken into consideration the reports of the Sub Inspector of Police and the Circle Inspector of Police. They have informed the District Magistrate that if for any reason the petitioner is permitted to conduct the business pursuant to the licence granted by the Excise authorities, it may lead to the disturbance of public peace. Keeping in view the mass petition filed, complaints filed by the citizens of the locality and W.A.49 of 2008. 3 also the report of the police authorities, the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order in exercise of his powers under Section 54 of the Act. Having gone through the records produced by the learned Government Pleader, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned District Magistrate is in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. Rightly keeping in view the spirit of Section 54 of the Act, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition and has reserved liberty to the petitioner, if he so desires, to approach the District Magistrate, for reconsideration of his decision in the changed circumstances, if any. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity or error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. However, we give liberty to the appellant, if he so desires, to approach the District Magistrate by filing a petition to reconsider his earlier order by bringing to his notice the changed circumstances and the changed scenario, if any. The appellant is also at liberty to make an appropriate application before the Excise authorities for re-fund of the licence fee paid. It is needless to say that when such application is made by the appellant, the authority concerned will consider the same in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.