Back
2011 Supreme(Ker) 669
High Court of Kerala
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM
K.D. Antony
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Malappuram & Others
WP(C).No. 17962 of 2011(U)
Decided On : 19-07-2011
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Renjith Thampan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K. Jayakumar, Senior Advocate, C. Anil Kumar, Advocate, T.K. Vipindas, Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, 2011 - Section 4 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Prohibition of obstruction on public ways - Petitioner is running Bar attached Hotel with Boarding facility under name and style 'Hotel Salkara', on strength licence granted under provisions of Abakri Act and Foreign Liquor Rules 1953 - Licence was issued in year 1985 and was periodically renewed, currently licence fee remitted by petitioner for current year is to tune of Rs. 22 lakhs and 18 workers are working in Hotel - On night there occurred assaults between suppliers working in Bar Hotel and a few customers - A person involved in said incident, died on next day, which was a normal death due to cardiac arrest, according to police authorities - Incident lead to protest against conduct of Bar, and demonstrations started under leadership of some local people - Whether prohibition contemplated under S.4 with respect to " public way or part thereof" will take in both "footpath" and "road margin" - Whether putting up any shed or structure either temporary or permanent for purpose of business, meeting, assembly, procession or demonstration can be permitted - Held, Prohibition under section 4 of Public Ways Act will apply to 'public way', 'foot path' and 'road-margin' - Putting up of any shed or structure either temporary or permanent at any such places for the purpose of any business, meeting, assembly, procession or demonstration could not be permitted - Court inclined to direct respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that respondents 5 and 6 and their men do not erect any shed on public road and conduct any dharna and meeting on the public road in front of building even on footpath or on the road-margin - We clarify that the rights protected under judgment in favour of respondents 5 and 6 for holding peaceful demonstration without causing any obstruction to the ingress and egress of the petitioner, his employees and customers, will not entitle them to put up a shed just in front of building on the public way and to have demonstration on the public way or footpath or road margin or road shoulder causing obstruction to usage of the public way or causing nuisance and abuse to the customers - Therefore inclined to issue a positive direction to respondents 1 to 4 to take effective steps for removal of shed put up in front of the petitioner's Bar Hotel on the public way and to prevent any dharna, meeting, demonstration or agitation being conducted on public road including the footpath or road-margin or road shoulder - Directions issued - Petition is disposed of.
Abdul Rehim, J. –
The petitioner is running a Bar attached Hotel with Boarding facility at Kuttipuram Town in Malappuram District, under the name and style 'Hotel Salkara', on the strength of Ext.P1, FL 3 licence granted under the provisions of the Abakri Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules 1953 made thereunder. Ext.P1 licence was issued in the year 1985 and was periodically renewed, currently upto 31.3.2012. The licence fee remitted by the petitioner for the current year is to the tune of Rs.22 lakhs and 18 workers are working in the Hotel.
2. On the night of 6.6.2011 there occurred assaults between the suppliers working in the Bar Hotel and a few customers. A person involved in the said incident, Shri. Ayoob, died on the next day, which was a normal death due to cardiac arrest, according to the police authorities. However, the incident lead to protest against conduct of the Bar, and demonstrations started under leadership of some local people. In the said circumstances the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion in WP (C).No.16631/2011 seeking police protection for peaceful conduct of business in the Bar Hotel. Respondents 5 and 6 herein along with one Shri. I.V.Rajagopalan were arrayed as party respondents alleged as creating obstructions under the guise of prohibitionists against the use of liquor. The above said Sri. I.V.Rajagopalan conceded that he has nothing to do with the alleged obstruction, but he had only participated in a meeting convened to highlight the evils of drinking. Respondents 5 and 6 herein, who were respondents 2 and 3 in the said writ petition, contended that the petitioner had procured the licence fraudulently and that the Bar is being conducted in violation of the relevant statutory provisions. However it was conceded that they are not in any way obstructing running of the Bar Hotel, but only peacefully demonstrating in front of the Bar raising objections against violation of the relevant Rules. They undertook that they will not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conducts. Respondents 3 and 4 herein, who were respondents 4 and 5 in that writ petition submitted that there is no threat to the conduct of the Bar and the police will afford necessary protection, if any such threat is there. Through Ext.P2 this court disposed of WP(C). No.16631/2011 on the following terms:-
"In the result,
(a) this writ petition is allowed.
(b) Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to afford police protection for the petitioner to peacefully run his bar attached hotel-Hotel Salkara, Kuttipuram, Malappuram District against any illegal obstruction that may be raised by respondents 1 to 3 or persons acting under them.
(c) We make it clear that this direction shall not in any way fetter the rights of respondents 1 to 3 to challenge the licence issued in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law or to hold peaceful demonstrations without in any way obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioner, his employees and his customers to the hotel. "
3. The present writ petition is filed raising allegations that, immediately on passing of Ext.P2 judgment, the respondents 5 and 6 collected large number of persons and erected a shed in front of the Hotel with temporary roof attached to the building. It is averred that, the shed is erected in front of the entrance to the Bar and entrance to the boarding and lodging area and the petitioner had to close down the shutter of the boarding and lodging area because of the violent protest and showering of abuse by respondents 5 and 6 and their henchmen even on the customers of the petitioner. It is alleged that apart from scouting on the street a group of persons are permanently stationed in front of the Hotel blocking entrance and abusing customers and other persons coming to the Bar and the Hotel. It is stated that the building in question is abutting 'Kuttipuram Main Road' at Kuttipuram Town and the temporary shed is erected on the main road, in vi
