MATHEW Vs. SUPT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to conduct his Foreign Liquor Wholesale Shop No.51.of Ambalapuzha Taluk. He bid the shop for the year 1994-1995. There was change of circumstances during the year 1994-1995 with the introduction of new abkari policy. As per the amended rule, the privilege of selling foreign liquor does not include the right to consumption within the premises. Therefore the petitioner in the present set up needs only one cashier and one salesman to carry on the business. The case of the petitioner is that fourteen employees employed by the previous contractor now demanded that they should be provided in the shop run by the petitioner. That request was not acceded to by the petitioner on the ground that he has got his own workers to carry on the wholesale shop. In that situation, the workers represented by respondents 3 and 4 started an agitation in front of the petitioner's shop. It is alleged that the workers, who are conducting the agitation, obstructed the petitioner and his customers for their free ingress and egress to and from the shop and thus normalcy could not be prevailed in the area. In that background the petitioner filed a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, evidenced by Ext. P1. As there was no tangible action from respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner came before this court with the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 3 and4. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 was also heard.

(3.) In view of the nature of the controversy involved in this case, this court directed respondents 1 and 2 to submit a report as to the exact distance between the places where the agitation is being conducted and the shop locates. According to the police, the agitation is being conducted at about five feet away from the northern boundary of the shop. The further aspect pointed out by the police is that there is no law and order problem at present in the area, and that proper safety measures have been taken. Mr. P.C. Chacko, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice two decisions of this Court, namely Chacko v. State of Kerala ( 1992 (2) KLT 333 ) and Balakrishna Transport v. Supdt. of Police ( 1990 (1) KLT 435 ). On the basis of these decisions it is urged that the agitation going on in a shed in front of the petitioner's shop should be totally removed in order to secure safety for the free engress and egress of the petitioner and his customers to and from the shop. The argument is that in order to have normalcy in the area and to carry on his business in a profitable manner the agitators should be removed totally otherwise every now and then disturbances will occur and the peaceful situation will hot be available. The question whether the petitioner has right to get a direction from this court to remove the persons who are conducting the agitation is a matter to be gone into. Of course, the petitioner has got fundamental right to carry on his business and trade under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but it is not an absolute right. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed, if there is interference in the right of others while so enjoying his rights. No citizen has a right to claim that he alone is entitled to enjoy the fundamental rights and others not. Therefore, this court will be justified in examining whether the restrictions on such rights in certain situations are reasonable or not. While considering this, the case of respondents 3 and 4, who are conducting the agitation is also to betaken note of. It is to be recalled, respondents 3 and 4 have also a fundamental right under Art.19(1)(b) and (c) to carry on the peaceful agitation in promotion of collective bargaining. When fundamental rights of two groups of people conflict with each other, it is the function of this court to reconcile them as far as possible. The functions of these two varying groups are to be gauged applying the test of reasonableness. This is what is required to be done in this case.