BOSCO ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed, seeking police protection to run a shop. The petitioner has been granted Ext.Pl licence to run T.S. No. 43 at Garudanmoola in Cherpu Excise Range for the abkari year 2007-08. The licence is granted in respect of a building bearing door No. X/181 of Thannyam Grama Panchayat. When the petitioner tried to start business in the shop, respondents 9 and 10 and their supporters started causing obstruction. Therefore, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the police, seeking protection for running the shop. Since no help was extended by the police, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The learned Govt. Pleader has filed n statement on behalf of the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, stating that earlier there was a toddy shop in the area during the year 1987-88. There was agitation against the functioning of the said toddy shop. It lasted for a period of more than one year. It was headed by Professor G. Kumara Pillai. The Sathyagraha by him continued till the shop was closed down on 6-12-1988. He went on hunger strike which he continued even after he was removed to the hospital, the then Excise Minister visited the hospital and informed the Government's decision to close down the shop. Thus, the shop stopped functioning from December 1988. Now, for the first time it was opened during this year and the people again started agitation, it is submitted.

(3.) The respondents 9 and 10 have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the agitation led by Professor G. Kumara Pillai and Professor N.P. Manmadhan was settled at the intervention of Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, former Judge of the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice T. Chandrasekhara Menon, former Judge of this Court, So, the location of the shop in the same area, now, is unjustified, it is submitted. They also point out that the petitioner does not have the necessary licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. So, even if Ext. P 1 licence is obtained, the petitioner has no right to run the shop, in the absence of the licence issued under the said Rules. Therefore, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, stating that the licence under the aforementioned Rules is not necessary, in view of the deletion of Sub-sections (2), (3) and ,(4) of Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act with effect from 24-3-1999.