(1.) The petitioner bid the right to sell toddy from TS No. 43/2007-08 of Thiruvanchoor in Group I of Pampady Range and was given Ext. P1 licence. From the inception, the local people were objecting to the conduct of the shop. Ext. P2 FIR was registered on that day for offences punishable under S.143, S.147, S.149, S.323, S.427 and S.447 IPC against different persons who were alleged to have trespassed into the toddy shop and damaged the goods belonging to the petitioner and had also involved in assault. The petitioner moved this Court for an order of police protection. This Court noticed that the private respondents therein were involved in objecting to the conduct of the toddy shop. This Court, therefore, noticed that they may have a right to conduct 'dharna' in a peaceful manner, however they cannot take law into their hands and cause physical obstruction to the functioning of the toddy shop. The police officials were directed to see that there is no law and order situation created by any of the parties. The private respondents in that writ petition were given the liberty to pursue their remedies before the District Collector.
(2.) In the meanwhile, the private respondents, who were conducting the 'dharna', complained about the deployment of 'gundas' and misbehaviour to ladies, including assault. As a matter of fact, that led to the registration of Crime No. 70/07, obviously, even before Ext. P2 crime No. 80/07. Crime 70/07 is registered for offences punishable under S.294(b) and S.509 read with R.34 IPC. That was registered on 02/04/2007, while Ext. P2 was registered on 13/05/2007. Thus, there were two complaints with the police; one accusing the licensee of interfering with the right of the private respondents to conduct 'dharna' in opposition to the housing of the toddy shop in the building in question and the other, a complaint by the licensee regarding trespass, assault and deprivation of property, by the private respondents.
(3.) On the basis of the complaint of the private respondents, the District Magistrate obtained the report of the police and the parties were heard. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ayarkunnam was of the firm view that the continued functioning of the toddy shop in the area will be detrimental to peace and tranquillity in that area. After issuing Ext. P5 which was interlocutory in nature, the impugned Ext. P9 has been issued after Ext. P7 was quashed by this Court as per Ext. P8 judgment. Among other things, the District Magistrate has stated in Ext. P9 that the Sub Inspector of Police, Ayarkunnam has stated that the entire locality, thereby meaning that the people of the locality, was against the shop and that if the shop was opened again, there was every likelihood that law and order problem could erupt again, disturbing peace and tranquility of the area. He had also brought to the notice of the District Magistrate that three criminal cases have been registered in connection with that particular issue and the cases have been charge sheeted. The private respondents had reported before the District Magistrate that the functioning of the shop will lead to severe law and order problems and will adversely affect the peace and tranquility in the area. They also feared that the women and children will not be able to move about freely and fearlessly to the area, if the toddy shop was allowed to function. In contrast, the plea on behalf of the petitioner was that after the Division Bench had issued Ext. P4 judgment, there was no law and order problem in the area, in the sense, that no crime was registered and no commission of offence was reported. I may also notice from Ext. P5 that according to the private respondents, there is a 'kudumbasree' unit within the distance of 30 metres and a nursery school within a distance of 150 metres from the toddy shop in question. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the 'kudumbasree' unit was brought up only after the toddy shop commenced its activities and was essentially planned to disturb the toddy shop.