K D ANTONY Vs. I V RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner runs a a bar attached hotel at Kuttippuram in Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, one person who had consumed alcohol at the Bar run by the petitioner had expired. But that had nothing to do with consumption of liquor at the Bar. Respondents 1 to 3, allegedly claiming to be prohibitionists, are illegally obstructing the business of the petitioner. THEy have no right to do so. THE petitioner runs his business in strict compliance with all the relevant statutes and rules. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that respondents 4 and 5 police officials may be directed to afford protection to the petitioner.

(2.) SERVICE is complete. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he has nothing to do with the alleged obstruction to the running of the bar by the petitioner. He has only taken part in a meeting which was convened to highlight the evils of drinking. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that they are not in any way obstructing the running of the bar attached hotel of the petitioner. According to the said respondents, the requisite licenses have been procured by the petitioner fraudulently. There is naked violation of the relevant statutory provisions. Persons like respondents 2 and 3 are only peacefully demonstrating in front of the bar run by the petitioner. They have every right to raise such objections against violation of the relevant rules in the running of the bar. At any rate, the respondents are not physically obstructing any one. They undertake that they shall not indulge in any such contumacious or culpable conduct. In these circumstances, no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary, submits the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) IN the result,