THOMAS GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are FL-3 licensees running Bar hotels in Kozhencherry. THEy filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 4th respondent invoking the power under section 54 of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short `the Act'). Ext.P5 order would reveal that it is founded on a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace and public tranquility in and around the area where the 116th Session of Maramon Convention is scheduled to be held from 13.2.2011 to 20.2.2011 in the absence of a prohibitory order under section 54 of the Act. THE place wherein the convention is scheduled to be held is admittedly, on the banks of river Pampa at Maramon. Invariably, crowds will throng the convention area, adjoining place and the roads in and around the area during the aforesaid period. Ext.P5 would reveal that the General Secretary of the Convention as per his letter dated 10.1.2011 requested the District Collector as well, to take effective measures to maintain law and order in the convention area during the convention period. Ultimately, that led to the issuance of Ext.P5 order. Firstly, it is challenged on the ground of non-existence of circumstances warranting invocation of the power under section 54 of the Act. It is contended that there was absolutely no material before the fourth respondent for passing such an order. According to the petitioners, there was no chaotic situation or circumstance for forming a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace and public tranquility existed or existing in the area. THErefore, relying on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.5187 of 2005 (Ext.P1) and Ext.P2 judgment it is contended that Ext.P5 order is unsustainable. It is also contended that taking note of Ext.P1 judgment and rather, to comply with the directions thereunder that Government have issued a circular dated 29.4.2009 incorporating seven instructions. It is further contended that such specific instructions in Ext.P3 also did not lend any support to Ext.P5 order.

(2.) SECTION 54 of the Act, in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this case, reads as follows: