IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29635 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HOTEL WAYANAD REGENCY PVT.LTD., KARADI, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR.JOY JOHN, THENGUMKUDIYIL, POTHANIKADU.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM SRI.SAJIKUMAR.K.K. SRI.V.J.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THAMARASSERY. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY. 3. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MOOSA, HOUSE NO.10/520, KURUMTHOTTIKANDI, 18TH MILE, THAMARASERY.P.O, 4. SIDHIQUE, S/O.PATHUMMA, HOUSE NO.10/463, KURUMTHOTTIKANDI, 18TH MILE, THAMARASERY.P.O. 5. NAZAR, S/O.SULAIMAN, HOUSE NO.10/423A, KANNANKUNNUMMEL, 18TH MILE, THAMARASERY.P.O. 6. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.SULAIMAN, KANNANKUNNUMMEL, 18TH MILE, THAMARASERY.P.O. 7. ELIYAS, S/O.HASSAN, KUNNUMMEL, THOTTAKARA, 18TH MILE, THAMARASERY.P.O. WP(C).No. 29635 of 2009 8. ANEES, S/O.MOHAMMED EDAVALATHU HOUSE, THAMARASSERY.P.O. 9. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.AYISHA, KANNANKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, 18TH MILE, THAMARASERY.P.O. 10. ASHARAFF, S/O.HASSAN, KANNANKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, 18TH MILE, THAMARASERY.P.O.. [NAME OF THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 AND 9 IS CORRECTED AND ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS 3 TO 10 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1341/2009 DATED 4/11/2009] BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R3-4&9 SRI.T.SHYAM PRASAD FOR R3,4 & 9 SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R5 TO 8 & 10 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29635 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THREE STAR CLASSIFICATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, INDIAN TOURISM- CHENNAI. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BAR LICENSE ISSUED BY THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE DIRECTOR BOARD MEETING DATED 15/9/2009 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/9/2009 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/9/2009 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18/10/2009. EXT.P7: PHOTOGRAPY RELATINGT TO THE PROTEST EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 19/11/2009. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTGRAPH. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED THAMARASSERY PANCHAYAT DATED 20/5/2009 EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/10/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.27155/2009. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JJ ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.29635 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December,2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph.J The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and their staff attached to the hotel to live free from fear of physical harm for them and their properties. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure free ingress and egress to the guests coming to petitioner hotel and to give adequate protection to avoid any such obstruction and to take stringent action against anybody staging any protest within 200 metes of the business place of the petitioner. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ orders or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider and act effectively to the Ext.P3 and P4 petitions within a time fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that they have not caused any physical obstruction to the management and staff of the hotel and also to the customers. The W.P.(C).No.29635 of 2009 2 people of the locality only record their peaceful protest against the functioning of a bar hotel in the locality. No doubt people have every right to record their protest in a peaceful manner. Since the petitioner is conducting licensed activity such protest shall not have any impact of physical obstruction to the management, staff and customers. Therefore the writ petition is disposed making it clear that it will be open to the party respondents and other people in the locality to record their protest against functioning of the bar hotel, but protest shall not, in any way, amount to physical obstruction for the smooth functioning of the hotel. In order to avoid any possible law and order situation we make it clear that agitation if any, shall be conducted only beyond 50 meters from the front gate of the bar hotel. Learned counsel for the party respondents submits that the petitioner does not have the required license to conduct the business of liquor. We make it clear that the judgment shall not stand in the way of party respondents pursuing their appropriate remedy in such matters. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE ssn