MARIMUTHU Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Rajasekharan Nair for the petitioner, Mr. N. Nandakumara Menon for the 2nd respondent, Mr. Basant Balaji for the respondent and the Government Pleader for Respondents 1, 5 and 6.

(2.) The Original Petition was field by the petitioners who are in possession of building No.T.C. 37/28 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- per month. The 4th respondent Sivasankaran Nair is the owner of the premises. The property was leased out to the first petitioner for the purpose of conducting textile business and it is so stated in the rent deed dated 1.7.1993 executed by the 4th respondent According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent is trying to take forcible possession of the building without recourse to the law and many attempts have been made by the 4th respondent and his children to take possession of the room in which the business is being conducted, which resulted in the filing of a suit, O.S. No. 282 of 1996, in which the Court at first granted interim order restraining the 4th respondent and others from dispossessing the petitioners from the shop room. The suit was later decreed on 31.3.1998. It is alleged by the petitioners that Inspite of the decree and judgment, the 4th respondent, under the influence of his daughter, who is employed in the police department, attempted to dispossess the petitioners with the help of the police from the shop room in question. As the threat of eviction by forcible means by the police became severe, petitioners filed O.P. 12584 of 1998, which was allowed by judgment dated 19.11.1998, which is marked as Ext. P1 in this Original Petition. It is stated that during the pendency of the above Original Petition there was no interim order for a few days and during those days the respondents cut of the electric connection to the petitioners' shop room. To restore the connection petitioners applied to the 5th respondent Tahsildar under S.13 of the Rent Control Act. They have also filed application before the Assistant Executive Engineer for reconnection of the electric supply. Since the harassment was on the increase, the petitioners petitioned to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram, but the police, it is alleged, instead of granting protection, is wilfully disobeying Ext. P1 order. In such circumstances, the petitioners filed the present Original Petition to call for the records relating to Ext. P5 letter of the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram to the first petitioner and quash the same, and for a mandamus to the authorities of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to issue the licence for the conduct of the business in textiles in continuation of the previous licence. Other incidental reliefs are also sought for.

(3.) It is alleged that the authorities of the Corporation of Trivandrum are colluding with the owner of the building by denying licence to the petitioners for the purpose of conducting their business by insisting that they should be provided with the written consent of the landlord for issuance of licence. It is also submitted that the business in textiles is not one for which licence is necessary, but the petitioners applied for the licence by way of abundant caution.