Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2193
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
JAGJITH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C)/20189/2015
SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SRI.M.V.DAS, SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN, SMT.MARIAN G.M.THARAKAN, SRI.S.JAYAKUMAR
A licensed business operator has the right to conduct operations without obstruction by private parties, especially when not causing public disturbance.
Headnote:
Protection - Writ Petition - Not applicable - The court emphasized the lawful operation of the business and the right to unobstructed conduct, interpreting the law to affirm business rights over private grievances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking police protection against obstruction caused by the 4th respondent while running a parcel office, claiming that he is not obstructing traffic and his vehicles are parked inside his premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the petitioner was not creating any traffic obstruction and had a valid license for his business, he could not be obstructed by others, hence police intervention was warranted to maintain law and order.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection against obstruction caused by others while operating a licensed parcel service.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner, being licensed and not causing obstruction, is entitled to conduct his business without interference from private individuals.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of favorably for the petitioner.
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking police protection inter alia contending that he is running a parcel office at Giri Nagar. The complaint is that the 4th respondent and his men are obstructing movement of the vehicles, which are Light Motor Vehicles and therefore, he is unable to carry on the parcel service. According to the petitioner, he is not creating any nuisance or obstruction to the vehicular traffic in the area and he is not parking any of his vehicles on the road, whereas, all his vehicles are parked inside the premises. He also submits that he had obtained the permission from the competent authority for running the parcel service.
2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that on previous occasion also there was some issue regarding parking of vehicles, which were heavy contract carriage buses. The people in the locality have some grievance on account of the petitioner's vehicles being taken through the colony, which is creating some nuisance.
3. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that he is not creating any obstruction as alleged by the petitioner. They have been complaining about the heavy vehicles being plying through the small roads within the colony and the matter has already been taken up before this Court in another writ petition.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, it is clear that the petitioner is not parking his commercial vehicles on the road. If the petitioner is not creating any traffic obstruction, no one else can have any right to obstruct the petitioner from carrying on his business, for which, he has a valid licence. The petitioner is only parking his vehicles inside the business premises and if any obstruction is caused by the private respondent or his men in that regard, the police is bound to interfere in the matter and maintain law and order situation.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE
