SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
SHAIJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44172 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SMT.ABHIRAMI S., SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
For the Respondents: SHRI. GIRISH KUMAR M S, SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV, SHRI. AKASH S., SMT.RICHU THERESA ROBERT, SRI. P.S. APPU, GP.

The Court affirmed the right of a licensed business to operate without unlawful obstruction, emphasizing the duty of law enforcement to protect lawful enterprises.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the statutory provisions related to liquor licensing and acknowledged that the petitioner had obtained necessary permissions for operating a toddy shop. Despite complying with regulations, the petitioner faced obstruction from local residents and political activists. The Court determined that such obstruction was unlawful, affirming the petitioner's right to conduct business freely. The primary issue was whether adequate police protection could be mandated. The Court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to protection and relief from disruptions. The writ petition is allowed as above.

Table of Content
1. issue of mandamus for police protection. (Para 1)
2. petition details and statutory compliance. (Para 2)
3. court's determination on obstructions. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing respondent no. 3 and 4 to provide adequate police protection for the smooth conduct and operation of the toddy shop as prayed for in Exhibit P3 and P4.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing respondent no. 3 and 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner’s life, body, and property as prayed for in Exhibit P3 and P4.

iii) To issue appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the respondent 3 and 4 to take appropriate action under law against the person who obstructs the petitioners from operating and conducting the toddy shop licensed to the petitioner.

iv) To issue such other Writ, direction, or order which this Hon’ble Court may be feels fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent as directed by this Court, which reads as follows:

“3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has duly obtained all necessary statutory permissions and licences required for operating a toddy shop in the Mukkolalkkal area, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Kazhakuttom Police Station, Ever since securing the licence, the petitioner has been fully prepared to operate the toddy shop in strict compliance with all statutory provisions, regulatory norms, and directions issued by the competent authorities. The toddy shop is situated in the city limits, in the vicinity of Techno Park Phase11. The petitionerhas obtainedToddy Shop Licence No. 2025-

26/TVPM, issued by the Excise Department on 12.08.2025.

7. Jt is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid toddy shop presently remains non-functional, and the commencement of its operation continues to be obstructed by the 5" respondent, certain neighbouring residents, political activists and others. In these circumstances, it is brought to the kind notice of this Honourable Court that, since the proposed site is located in close proximity to Kazhakuttam Technopark Phase-Ill, permitting the opening and functioning of the toddy shop at the said location is likely to give rise to potential law and order issues in the locality.”

3. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner obtained all the licences/permissions to conduct a toddy shop, the party respondents have no right to physically obstruct the same. In case there is any obstructions from respondents 5 and 6 or any other persons, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent – Station House Officer, who will take appropriate action, in accordance with law to prevent any physical obstruction to the running of the shop by the petitioner by either additional respondents 5, 6 or any other persons.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top