PAVITHRAN Vs. LAISY SANTHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the common judgment dtd. 14/2/2020 in W.P.(C) Nos.29704 of 2015 and 2213 of 2018. The appellants in the appeals are respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C) No.29704 of 2015 and petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2213 of 2018. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.29704 of 2015.

(2.) The petitioner is a person residing at Vaikom in a residential property owned by her. A toddy shop under the Vaikom Excise Range is located in the property adjacent to the residential property of the petitioner. Respondents 4 to 6 are the licencees of the said toddy shop. According to the petitioner, since the functioning of the toddy shop has been causing nuisance to her and family, she preferred a complaint to the first respondent, the Excise Commissioner, seeking orders to change its location. Though it was found that the toddy shop has been functioning in the same location and premises right from 1994-95 in accordance with the Rules framed under the Abkari Act and that the petitioner is a person who started residing in the adjacent property after the establishment of the toddy shop, the first respondent, as per Ext.P7 order, directed respondents 4 to 6 to relocate the toddy shop, invoking Rule 7(3) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (the Rules), holding that its functioning is causing inconvenience to the petitioner. Respondents 4 to 6 challenged Ext.P7 order in revision before the Government mainly on the ground that a suitable alternative place is not available in the locality within the permissible limits and in terms of Ext.P12 order, the Government modified Ext.P7 order permitting respondents 4 to 6 to continue the toddy shop at the same location and premises until they get a suitable alternative place for relocation. W.P.(C) No.29704 of 2015 was one filed challenging Ext.P12 order to the extent it permits respondents 4 to 6 to continue the toddy shop at its present location and premises until they get a suitable alternative place for relocating the same, and W.P.(C) No.2213 of 2018 was filed by respondents 4 to 6 challenging Exts.P7 and P12 orders.

(3.) The writ petitions were heard along with a few other similar writ petitions challenging the location of toddy shops referred to therein. The learned Single Judge took the view that the underlying concern in all the writ petitions is the infringement of right to privacy of the petitioners and held that location of a toddy shop in a residential area would be in derogation of the right of the individuals to have respect for their private and family life. The learned Single Judge thereafter laid down the criteria for deciding the question as to whether location of a particular shop would infringe the privacy rights of individual/individuals who were raising objections/complaints against its location and then decided the writ petitions applying the said criteria, having regard to the facts involved.