1. A bar hotel licensee challenged police restrictions on hosting DJ events during extended operating hours permitted by state licensing rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
MAHADEVAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 17410/2026
Important Points
Lawful extended operating hours of a business cannot be curtailed by police based on mere apprehension of crime; however, noise pollution remains a valid ground for reasonable restriction under the Noise Pollution Rules and Police Act.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 - Rule 28(1) - Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Sections 4, 77, 78 and 79 - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Rules 2, 5 and 8 - Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(b), 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 21 - Right to operate a five-star bar hotel during extended hours - Restrictions on DJ parties - Balance between the right to carry on business and the right to a noise-free environment.
(B) Noise Pollution - The right to live free from noise pollution is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 - Use of loudspeakers or sound amplifiers is not a constitutional right and does not outweigh the right of others to a peaceful environment - Authorities are empowered to issue preventive directions under Section 77 of the Police Act or Rule 8 of the Noise Pollution Rules to prohibit, control, or regulate noise when ambient noise standards are violated (Paras 15-16).
(C) Law and Order - Mere possibility of criminal activities or the presence of anti-social elements is not sufficient justification for restricting the extended operating hours of a lawfully licensed business - Police must take action against specific offenders rather than compelling the closure of a business based on apprehension (Paras 19-21).
(D) Duration of Orders - Notifications issued under Section 79 of the Police Act can remain in force for a period not exceeding fifteen days and cannot be permanent in nature (Para 21).
Facts of the case:
A licensee of a five-star bar hotel was granted statutory permission to operate for an additional three hours beyond the standard permissible closing time. Police officials issued notices restricting the conduct of DJ parties after 11:00 p.m. and directing the hotel to stop operations by midnight, citing public safety, potential drug use, and general law and order concerns. The petitioner challenged these notices, asserting that his right to carry on business was being infringed.
Findings of Court:
The hotel is entitled to operate until 3:00 a.m. as per the license extension granted by the government. While the police possess the authority to regulate noise pollution under specific statutory rules, they cannot curtail the overall operating hours of the hotel based on an apprehension of potential crime without evidence of actual violations.
Issues: Whether the police can restrict entertainment activities and curtail the operating hours of a bar hotel that has been granted a statutory extension of hours by the competent government authority on grounds of maintaining public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions. Noise pollution is a valid ground for such restrictions under the Noise Pollution Rules. However, the mere apprehension of criminality does not constitute a reasonable restriction to override a statutory license. Law enforcement is required to target criminal elements and maintain traffic control rather than imposing blanket restrictions on a lawful business.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; impugned notices set aside; petitioner permitted to function until 3:00 a.m. subject to noise regulations.
(B) Noise Pollution - The right to live free from noise pollution is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 - Use of loudspeakers or sound amplifiers is not a constitutional right and does not outweigh the right of others to a peaceful environment - Authorities are empowered to issue preventive directions under Section 77 of the Police Act or Rule 8 of the Noise Pollution Rules to prohibit, control, or regulate noise when ambient noise standards are violated (Paras 15-16).
(C) Law and Order - Mere possibility of criminal activities or the presence of anti-social elements is not sufficient justification for restricting the extended operating hours of a lawfully licensed business - Police must take action against specific offenders rather than compelling the closure of a business based on apprehension (Paras 19-21).
(D) Duration of Orders - Notifications issued under Section 79 of the Police Act can remain in force for a period not exceeding fifteen days and cannot be permanent in nature (Para 21).
Facts of the case:
A licensee of a five-star bar hotel was granted statutory permission to operate for an additional three hours beyond the standard permissible closing time. Police officials issued notices restricting the conduct of DJ parties after 11:00 p.m. and directing the hotel to stop operations by midnight, citing public safety, potential drug use, and general law and order concerns. The petitioner challenged these notices, asserting that his right to carry on business was being infringed.
Findings of Court:
The hotel is entitled to operate until 3:00 a.m. as per the license extension granted by the government. While the police possess the authority to regulate noise pollution under specific statutory rules, they cannot curtail the overall operating hours of the hotel based on an apprehension of potential crime without evidence of actual violations.
Issues: Whether the police can restrict entertainment activities and curtail the operating hours of a bar hotel that has been granted a statutory extension of hours by the competent government authority on grounds of maintaining public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions. Noise pollution is a valid ground for such restrictions under the Noise Pollution Rules. However, the mere apprehension of criminality does not constitute a reasonable restriction to override a statutory license. Law enforcement is required to target criminal elements and maintain traffic control rather than imposing blanket restrictions on a lawful business.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; impugned notices set aside; petitioner permitted to function until 3:00 a.m. subject to noise regulations.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand Kalyanakrishnan, S. Rajeev, C. Dheeraj Rajan, V. Vinay, M. S. Aneer, Libin Varghese
For the Respondents: P.A. Mohammed Shah, Renoy Vincent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand Kalyanakrishnan, S. Rajeev, C. Dheeraj Rajan, V. Vinay, M. S. Aneer, Libin Varghese
For the Respondents: P.A. Mohammed Shah, Renoy Vincent
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner asserted fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) to operate, while police contended that DJ events pose public peace and safety risks under the Kerala Police Act. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Police cannot restrict lawful business hours based on mere apprehension of crime; regulatory authority under the Kerala Police Act is limited to preventive, non-permanent and non-Arbitrary measures. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 21 )
4. Fundamental rights to carry on trade cannot be curtailed by police notices based on mere apprehension; restrictions on operating hours must align with specific statutory rules. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
5. The court set aside police restrictions on operating hours and held that the petitioner may function during the extended hours permitted under valid state licensing rules. (Para 22 )
6. Can the police impose restrictions on business operating hours beyond those prescribed by law due to potential law and order concerns?
No. The police cannot unilaterally curtail permitted operating hours based solely on the apprehension of potential crime. Stringent law enforcement action should be taken against specific offenders rather than punishing the business owner by imposing arbitrary closing times. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
7. What is the scope of police power under Section 77 of the Kerala Police Act regarding noise regulation?
The police authority is limited to issuing preventive or regulatory directions to control noise pollution—such as high-decibel music—to prevent public nuisance, as long as these orders comply with the Noise Pollution Rules and are not used as an indefinite prohibition of a business. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. Are DJ parties and similar entertainment events protected under the fundamental right to carry on trade or business?
Yes, but subject to reasonable restrictions. While the licensee has a right to operate, that right does not include creating noise pollution or compromising public order. The government or police may regulate these activities using lawful, proportional measures without permanently infringing upon the licensee’s fundamental rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the licensee of a bar hotel at Ernakulam which is having five star classification. Ext. P2 is the FL-3 Licence renewal certificate issued in respect of the petitioner's hotel.
2. The Government of Kerala, vide Ext. P3 notification dated 13.02.2026, amended Rule 28 (1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 and the proviso thereto, granting permission to FL-3 licensed bar hotels having 5 star classification and above to function for an additional three hours time after the permissible closing time, on payment of an additional annual rental, in the interest of promoting meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (MICE) tourism, destination wedding, international conference etc. The petitioner applied for the benefit of Ext. P3 and paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as fee to the Government. The 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, vide Ext. P4 order, granted permission to the petitioner to function the hotel for an additional three hours after the permissible closing time, for the financial year 2026-27.
3. The petitioner states that despite having the benefit of Ext. P4, the 5th respondent, the Station House Officer (SHO) is constantly harassing him and his staff by issuing repeated notices directing him not to conduct any DJ party in the hotel. Ext. P5 notice dated 27.03.2026 was issued by the SHO to the Manager of the hotel directing not to function the hotel beyond 12 O’ clock in the midnight and to stop celebrations using loud speakers after 10:00 p.m. Ext. P6 dated 30.03.2026 is the subsequent notice issued by the SHO to the Manager stating that DJ parties were being regularly conducted at the hotel with lots of young men and women participating and that quarrels occurred during such parties under consumption of narcotic substances. The petitioner was accordingly directed to refrain from conducting DJ parties at the hotel until further orders. On 28.04.2026, the 4th respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police issued Ext. P7 notice stating that as part of the measures taken to maintain law and order in the Central Sub-Division, all bars within the Sub-Division are to stop operations by 12 midnight, in accordance with the regulatory closing time prescribed by the Government, and to stop conducting DJ parties by 11:00 p.m. Ext. P8 FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for conducting DJ party in the hotel till 3.00 a.m. on 30.04.2026, in violation of Exts. P6 and P7 notices.
4. According to the petitioner, the allegation that he is conducting DJ party in the hotel is not true and he is only conducting the bar on the strength of Ext. P4 order till the time permitted therein. The petitioner states that due to constant harassment meted out to him and his staff by respondents 4 and 5, he is not able to open the bar hotel and function the same and this has infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further states that when the 3rd respondent, vide Ext. P4 order, had extended the functioning of the bar hotel by 3 hours on the basis of the amendment brought out to the Foreign Liquor Rules, and on payment of additional annual rental of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the same cannot be curtailed by respondents 4 and 5, the officials of the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts. P5 to P7 notices and to direct respondents 4 and 5 to permit the functioning of the bar hotel in accordance with Exts. P2 and P4.
5. A Statement has been filed by the Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam City, the additional 6th respondent contending that under the guise of an FL-3 license and Ext. P4 extension issued by the Excise Department, the petitioner has been conducting late-night DJ parties allegedly resulting in incidents of drug abuse, violent disturbances, and public safety concerns. It is stated that Ext. P1 classification and Ext. P2 licence do not confer any absol
