PRASANNA PRATHABAN Vs. RAFEEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 of the first respondent.

(3.) 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.