Kerala High Court
Lijose Shibu vs The Station House Officer on 1 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 10699 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10699 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
LIJOSE SHIBU
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. LATE SRI SHIBU JOSEPH, KANDARAPPALLIL HOUSE,
NALLOORNAD AMSOM, PULIKKAD DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK
AND POST, WAYANAD - 670 645.
BY ADVS.
M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SRI.P.C.GOPINATH
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SHRI.ASIF N
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD - 670 645.
2 IBRAHIM K.
S/O. KUNHAMMED, 'NASREENAS', NETHAJI ROAD,
MANANTHAVADY, MANAGER, PLAZA HOTEL, MYSORE ROAD
JUNCTION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD - 670 645.
3 NOUSHEER
S/O. IBRAHIM, 'NASREENAS', WORKER, PLAZA HOTEL,
MYSORE ROAD JUNCTION, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD - 670 645.
4 MUSTHAFA K.
S/O. USMAN, 'KOORI HOUSE', WORKER, PLAZA HOTEL,
MYSORE ROAD JUNCTION, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD - 670 645.
5 PRADEEP P. S.
S/O.SANTHA KUMAR, WORKER, PLAZA HOTEL,
MYSORE ROAD JUNCTION, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD - 670 645.
WP(C) NO. 10699 OF 2021 2
6 MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPALITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF MANANTHAVADY
MUNICIPALITY, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD - 670 645.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SANTHARAM.P, SC, MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPALITY
SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
SMT AMMINIKUTTY K, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10699 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
Petitioner states that he along with his uncle one Simon Joseph, a certain
Noushad Keloth and his brother Phoulad are the owners in title and possession
of property having an extent of 1.5 cents in Re.Sy. No.596 of Mananthavady
Taluk. In the said property, three shop rooms bearing Mananthavady
Municipality, Door Nos. M.M.XIV-1944, 1953 and 1954 are situated. The
petitioner states that, in the year 2016, the petitioner secured a licence and
started a hotel in the name and style "Plaza Hotel". The respondent No.2 herein
was appointed as the Manager and respondent Nos.3 to 5 were the workers
therein.
2. While the petitioner was out of India during the last quarter of the
year 2020, the running of the hotel was entrusted with the party respondents.
He contends that on 19.1.2020, an inspection was conducted in the hotel by the
authorities and it was found that the water in the well contained high levels of
Coliform bacteria. The local authority issued Ext.P1 notice directing the
petitioner to either take steps to make the water clean and drinkable or to close
down the business. The petitioner and the co-owners decided to close down
the hotel as it was next to impossible to get a service connection. This fact was
intimated to the party respondents as well. However, they continued to operate
the hotel.
3. After returning back to India, on 4.3.2021, the petitioner along with
another co-owner went to the hotel and ordered its closing down. The party
respondents refused to accede to the said request. Some of their associates
were summoned and they ganged up and threatened the petitioner. They also
physically prevented the petitioner from entering the hotel.
4. In the said circumstances, he approached the Hon'ble Court of
Munsiff, Mananthawady, and filed a suit for injunction against the respondent
Nos.2 to 5 and sought for interdicting them from interfering with the closing
down of the hotel business in the light of the orders issued by the
Mananthawady Municipality. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides,
granted Ext.P2 order of injunction restraining respondent Nos.2 to 5 from
entering into the premises of the hotel building and also to refrain from
interfering with the rights of the petitioner to close down the hotel. He
contends that Ext.P3 notice was later issued by the local authority directing him
to close down the business or to face prosecution proceedings. When the
petitioner went to the hotel to implement the directions issued on the strength
of the orders passed by the Civil Court, he was obstructed by the party
respondents. An attempt was made to physically attack him as well. In the
said circumstances, he lodged Ext.P4 complaint before the 1st respondent
seeking protection to his life and property. His grievance is that due to the
influence of the party respondents with the police, no action is being taken.
5. The petitioner contends that the petitioner being the licensee, if the
hotel business is conducted in violation to the interdictory orders passed by the
local authority, he may have to face prosecution proceedings. It is in the afore
circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the
1st respondent to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner and
his family members from any threats by the party respondents and also to
provide support to implement and enforce the orders passed by the Munsiff
Court.
6. Though notice was served on the party respondents, none appears.
7. Sri. Santharam, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th
respondent Municipality, submitted that pursuant to Exts.P1 and P3 notices, the
petitioner had closed down the hotel. Later, the petitioner applied for
conducting a vegetable shop. Arrears towards licence fee due to the local
authority was paid. The learned Standing Counsel states that licence for running
a vegetable shop has now been issued to the petitioner.
8. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the
petitioner has already approached the civil court and obtained an order of
injunction. It is contended that if there is any likelihood of breach of peace or if
the petitioner apprehends any highhanded action on the part of the
respondents, he may approach the police and appropriate action shall be taken.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced. It appears that the
petitioner has been able to close down the business and he has now been
issued with a licence to run a vegetable shop. The party respondents have not
cared to appear before this Court and state their version though notice was
served on them. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality
asserts that the petitioner is the licensee. There is no dispute with regard to
the ownership of the property as well. I also find that the learned Munsiff after
a detailed evaluation of the facts and circumstances had restrained the
defendants/the party respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the premises or from obstructing the closing
down of the business in compliance with the orders issued by the local
authority. In that view of the matter, the party respondents will not be
justified in interfering with the rights of the petitioner and they would be bound
by the directions issued by the civil court.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent
to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioner or his family members by the
party respondents. If the party respondents interfere with the business, run by
the petitioner on the strength of the licence issued by the 6th respondent, the
petitioner may approach the 1st respondent, who shall take appropriate action
to ensure that no obstruction is caused.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10699/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.H1-3335/2021 DATED
24.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 2 OF 2021 IN
OS 25 OF 2021 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT,
MANANTHAVADY DATED 09.04.2021.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.H1-3335/2021
DATED 24.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE
MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.04.2021
FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.04.2021
FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
