K.B.Mukesh vs The Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 19088 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 6913 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

               K.B.MUKESH
               AGED 46 YEARS
               S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KURUVANGATTIL HOUSE, PALAZHI,
               MANALUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 617.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
               SRI.JAI GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

    1          THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, PIN-680 306.

    2          THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, PIN-680 306.

    3          K.G.RAMESAN,
               AGED 60 YEARS
               S/O.GOVINDAN, KANNEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               CHALAKKUDY P.O., PIN-680 307.

               BY ADVS.

               SRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM)
               SRI. E.C.BINEESH - GP


        THIS    WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   13.09.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6913 of 2021

                                     2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is running

a Toddy Shop in the Thrissur Excise Range with

a valid licence; but that, he and his employees

are being obstructed from carrying out their

activities by the 3rd respondent, who has raised

certain untenable and illegal demands. The

petitioner says that he was, therefore,

constrained to approach the 2nd respondent -

Station House Officer through Ext.P1 complaint,

but alleges that no action was taken thereon;

thus constraining him to have approached this

Court, through this writ petition.

2. When this matter was called today,

Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy - learned counsel

appearing for the 3rd respondent, submitted that

his client has been dealt unfairly by the

petitioner, even though he had been working for

the last several years uninterruptedly, solely

because he is now 60 years in age. He added

that his client has already approached to W.P.(C) No.6913 of 2021

Competent Authorities including the District

Labour Officer, for a conciliation but that no

action has been taken thereon. He, however,

added that his client has not and will not

cause any obstruction to the functioning of the

Toddy Shop and asserted that the afore

allegations made against him by the petitioner

are wholly untrue.

3. The learned Government Pleader,

Sri.E.C.Bineesh, also affirmed that the 3 rd

respondent has not caused any obstruction to

the functioning of the Toddy Shop and added

that, as long as the petitioner is fuctioning

with a valid licence, the police Authority will

ensure that he is allowed to do so, without any

threat or obstruction from any source.

4. When I consider the afore submissions,

it is without doubt that even if the 3 rd

respondent has any dispute with the petitioner,

he cannot take law into his own hands or cause

any illegal obstruction to the functioning of W.P.(C) No.6913 of 2021

the Toddy Shop. His remedy is, certainly, to

approach a Competent Authority which, he says,

he has already done.

Resultantly, this writ petition is

allowed and the respondents 1 and 2 are

directed to afford adequate protection to the

petitioner and his shop, as and when it is

necessary, so as to allow him to function it,

as long as he is running it with a valid

licence, without any threat or obstruction from

any source, including the 3rd respondent. I

further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to

ensure that law and order is always maintained

in the area in question, without any breach of

peace.

The writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

ww W.P.(C) No.6913 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6913/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.03.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT DATED ON 11.03.2021.

EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 12.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR DATED 14.12.2017.

EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 17.03.2021.

EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LETTER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER DATED 23.03.2021.

EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR DATED 23.03.2021.