Manoj Kumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22316 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 22101 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
           MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS,
           S/O. RAJAN, KATHIKULATH HOUSE, AANAPUZHA,
           KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR.

          BY ADV. DENIZEN KOMATH


RESPONDENTS:
     1     STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME
           AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2     THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          MUNAMBAM, PARUR POST, NORTH PARUR - 683 513.

    3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION,
          NJARAKKAL POST, VYPEEN, KOCHI 682 505.

    4     KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          SECRETARY, AYYAMPILLY POST, PIN-682 501.

    5     DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
          EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 018.

    6     RADHAKRISHNAN, WARD MEMBER KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
          WARD NO.4, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, MANAPPILLY,
          AYYAMPILLY P.O, NORTH PARUR-682 501.

    7     BABU, KOTTALAPPILLY HOUSE, MANAPPILLY, AYYAMPILLY P.O,
          NORTH PARUR-682 501.

    8     ANEESH, THOTINGAL HOUSE, MANAPPILLY, AYYAMPILLY P.O,
          NORTH PARUR-682 501.

          BY ADVS. R.ROHITH, SC,
          SRI.E.C.BINEESH, M.M.MONAYE, M.PAUL VARGHESE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22101 OF 2021
                                     -2-

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is running a Toddy

Shop under a valid licence, issued to him by the

competent Excise Officials and that it bears

T.S.No.23/2021-22 of Njarakkal Range.

2. According to the petitioner, even though he

was operating the Toddy Shop in strict compliance of

all the relevant conditions, both statutorily and

under the licence, respondents 6 to 8, who are the

ward members and local politicians, approached him and

demanded certain favours, which he did not accede to;

and that they then started harassing and threatening

him to close down the shop.

3. The petitioner further alleges that

respondents 6 to 8, in furtherance of their motives,

erected a 'pandhal' in front the Toddy Shop, disabling

free access to customers; and that he was thus

constrained to approach the 3rd respondent - Station

House Officer, through Ext.P3, seeking protection; but WP(C) NO. 22101 OF 2021

that since no action was taken thereon, he has been

forced to approach this Court through this writ

petition.

4. The afore submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner by his learned counsel - Smt.Mereena

J.Joseph, were vehemently opposed by Sri.M.M.Monaye -

learned counsel appearing for respondent 8, saying

that the petitioner cannot operate his Toddy Shop any

further because the 4th respondent - Kuzhuppilly Grama

Panchayat, has now issued a stop memo. He submitted

that the attempt of the petitioner is to obtain orders

from this Court and to circumvent law, by operating

the Toddy Shop in violation of the stop memo.

5. Sri.R.Rohith - learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.4 - Grama panchayat, also affirmed that

a stop memo has been issued against the Toddy Shop of

the petitioner; and that, consequently, he cannot seek

any order from this Court to restart the business

illegally.

6. In reply, Smt.Mereena J.Joseph - learned WP(C) NO. 22101 OF 2021

counsel for the petitioner, conceded that a stop memo

has been received by her client from the Panchayat;

but contended that the said Authority has no

competence to issue the same. She added that her

client reserves his right to challenge the stop memo

appropriately and prays that this writ petition be

allowed.

7. When I consider the afore submissions, there

can be little doubt that if the petitioner is acting

within the contours of law and operating the Toddy

Shop on the strength of all valid licences and

consents, then none of the party respondents can stop

him from doing so, particularly when such consents

have been issued by the competent statutory

Authorities.

8. Undoubtedly, the proper remedy of the party

respondents is to challenge the afore said consents or

to seek such other recourse, as are available to them

in law, but cannot take law into their own hands or

cause any physical obstruction against the functioning WP(C) NO. 22101 OF 2021

of the Toddy Shop of the petitioner.

9. That said, however, since the petitioner

himself concedes that a stop memo has been issued by

the Panchayat, I am certain that this Court will not

be justified in directing the Police Authority to

grant him protection to run the Toddy Shop, until such

time as the same is vacated through a process of law.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and

direct the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer, to

afford necessary protection to the petitioner and his

employees to run the Toddy Shop; however, only after

the petitioner establishes that the stop memo issued

by the 4th respondent - Panchayat has been either

vacated or set aside by a process of law.

In the event the petitioner is able to have the

stop memo set aside or vacated, by invoking his

legitimate remedies, then the 3rd respondent will

ensure that the petitioner is allowed to operate the

Toddy Shop, without any let or interference from any

person, including respondents 6 to 8 or their men or WP(C) NO. 22101 OF 2021

associates.

It is also needless to say that the 3rd respondent

will henceforth make sure that law and order is

maintained in the area where the shop is situated,

without any breach of peace being committed by any

person, including the party respondents.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 22101 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22101/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE TO CONDUCT TODDY SHOP DATED 01.04.2021 TO 31.03.2022.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VIDE REFERENCE NUMBER A7- 2708/2021 DATED 04.10.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.10.2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.10.2021.

EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.10.2021.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE