K.D. Antony vs I.V. Rajagopalan and Others

R. Basant, J.—The Petitioner runs a bar attached hotel at Kuttippuram in Malappuram District. According to the Petitioner, one person who had consumed alcohol at the Bar run by the Petitioner had expired. But that had nothing to do with consumption of liquor at the Bar. Respondents 1 to 3, allegedly claiming to be prohibitionists, are illegally obstructing the business of the Petitioner. They have no right to do so. The Petitioner runs his business in strict compliance with all the relevant statutes and rules. In these circumstances, the Petitioner prays that Respondents 4 and 5 police officials may be directed to afford protection to the Petitioner.

Service is complete. Respondent No. 1 has entered appearance. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that he has nothing to do with the alleged obstruction to the running of the bar by the Petitioner. He has only taken part in a meeting which was convened to highlight the evils of drinking. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 submits that they are not in any way obstructing the running of the bar attached hotel of the Petitioner. According to the said Respondents, the requisite licenses have been procured by the Petitioner fraudulently. There is naked violation of the relevant statutory provisions. Persons like Respondents 2 and 3 are only peacefully demonstrating in front of the bar run by the Petitioner. They have every right to raise such objections against violation of the relevant rules in the running of the bar. At any rate, the Respondents are not physically obstructing any one. They undertake that they shall not indulge in any such contumacious or culpable conduct. In these circumstances, no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary, submits the learned Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3.

We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that after the unfortunate event of death of a person who visited the bar, the Petitioner was apprehensive that there may be retaliation from the local people. He had accordingly closed his bar. In the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the Petitioner or the bar run by him from Respondents 1 to 3 or others. If there be any such threat, police shall afford necessary protection to the Petitioner and the bar run by him. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader submits that it is not necessary to issue any specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We have rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued.

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 license 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.