K D ANTONY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is running a Bar attached Hotel with Boarding facility at Kuttipuram Town in Malappuram District, under the name and style 'Hotel Salkara', on the strength of Ext.P1, FL 3 licence granted under the provisions of the Abakri Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules 1953 made thereunder. Ext.P1 licence was issued in the year 1985 and was periodically renewed, currently upto 31.3.2012. The licence fee remitted by the petitioner for the current year is to the tune of Rs. 22 lakhs and 18 workers are working in the Hotel.

(2.) On the night of 6.6.2011 there occurred assaults between the suppliers working in the Bar Hotel and a few customers. A person involved in the said incident, Shri. Ayoob, died on the next day, which was a normal death due to cardiac arrest, according to the police authorities. However, the incident lead to protest against conduct of the Bar, and demonstrations started under leadership of some local people. In the said circumstances the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion in WP(C). No. 16631/2011 seeking police protection for peaceful conduct of business in the Bar Hotel. Respondents 5 and 6 herein along with one Shri. I.V.Rajagopalan were arrayed as party respondents alleged as creating obstructions under the guise of prohibitionists against the use of liquor. The above said Sri. I.V. Rajagopalan conceded that he has nothing to do with the alleged obstruction, but he had only participated in a meeting convened to highlight the evils of drinking. Respondents 5 and 6 herein, who were respondents 2 and 3 in the said writ petition, contended that the petitioner had procured the licence fraudulently and that the Bar is being conducted in violation of the relevant statutory provisions. However it was conceded that they are not in any way obstructing running of the Bar Hotel, but only peacefully demonstrating in front of the Bar raising objections against violation of the relevant Rules. They undertook that they will not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conducts. Respondents 3 and 4 herein, who were respondents 4 and 5 in that writ petition submitted that there is no threat to the conduct of the Bar and the police will afford necessary protection, if any such threat is there. Through Ext.P2 this court disposed of WP(C). No.16631/2011 on the following terms :-

(3.) The present writ petition is filed raising allegations that, immediately on passing of Ext.P2 judgment, the respondents 5 and 6 collected large number of persons and erected a shed in front of the Hotel with temporary roof attached to the building. It is averred that, the shed is erected in front of the entrance to the Bar and entrance to the boarding and lodging area and the petitioner had to close down the shutter of the boarding and lodging area because of the violent protest and showering of abuse by respondents 5 and 6 and their henchmen even on the customers of the petitioner. It is alleged that apart from scouting on the street a group of persons are permanently stationed in front of the Hotel blocking entrance and abusing customers and other persons coming to the Bar and the Hotel. It is stated that the building in question is abutting 'Kuttipuram Main Road' at Kuttipuram Town and the temporary shed is erected on the main road, in violation of mandates of the ruling of this court in Chief Secretary to Government v. Khalid Mundappilly, 2010 3 KerLT 757 and also the provisions of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act 2011, (hereinafter referred to as the Public Ways Act, for short). It is contended that the shed was constructed in the presence of police officials and inspite of specific requests made, the respondents 5 and 6 or their men were not prevented from such illegal activity, obviously under the undue influence of respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that inspite of Ext.P4 complaint submitted before the 4th respondent, no action was taken. Under such circumstances the petitioner is seeking direction to ensure that respondents 5 and 6 do not conduct any 'dharna' or meeting atleast within a distance of 100 meters from the entrance of the Hotel building and also to command respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the respondents 5 and 6 and their men do not erect any temporary shed on the public road and conduct 'dharna' and meeting in violation of the ruling of this court cited above and other relevant statutes.