James.P.T vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 10639 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10639 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

James.P.T vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                      WP(C) NO. 14146 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

             JAMES.P.T
             AGED 67 YEARS
             S/O.THOMMY, RESIDING AT PAPPALY,
             THAIKKATTUKARA.P.O., ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM,
             PIN - 683106
             BY ADVS.
             S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
             K.VIJAYAN
             NAMITHA RAJESH
             MALVIKA S KUMAR
             K.C.SANTHOSH


RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
             SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
     2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
             ALWAYE EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
     3       SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
             ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
     4       ABDUL OFFAR
             AGED 50 YEARS
             FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT LAILA MANZIL,
             UDHYOGAMANDAL.P.O., ELOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
             BY ADVS.
             B.S.SURESH KUMAR
             GEORGE SEBASTIAN(K/2800/1999)


             SRI.P.M.SHAMEER, GP

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   11.04.2024,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14146 OF 2024

                                2




                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is running a business of

retail sale of vegetables and such other articles, under the

name 'PTJ Vegetables', in a private property which is next to

the Alwaye Market, for the last 20 years. He says that the 4 th

respondent has now started to obstruct and to intimidate him

and his workers on the assertion that he has been granted

licence to collect fees from him; but that this is untenable

because, he is not liable to pay any such to any person. The

petitioner says that when the threats from the 4 th respondent

become unbearable, he preferred Ext.P4 petition, seeking

protection before the 2nd respondent, but which has remained

unheeded until now; and therefore, that he has been

constrained to approach this Court through this Writ Petition.

2. In response, Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar - learned

counsel for the 4th respondent, submitted that the afore

assertions of the petitioner are untrue and that his business is

being run within the Municipal Market - the collection of fees

with respect to shops therein, having been granted to his

client. He submitted that attempt of the petitioner is only to WP(C) NO. 14146 OF 2024

avoid the payment of legitimate fees and hence, prayed that

this Writ Petition be dismissed. He concluded saying that his

client has not and will not cause any threat or intimidation to

the petitioner, or cause any obstruction to his business; but

sought liberty for him to invoke legal remedies against him -

both for the recovery of liable fees as also for his eviction, if it

becomes so warranted.

3. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader

submitted that the Police have already looked into the matter

and have found no threat or intimidation being faced by the

petitioner at the hands of the 4th respondent, as of now. He

submitted that the Police cannot, and will not, enter into the

disputes between the parties, as to whether the petitioner is

liable to pay fees to the 4th respondent and that these are

matters they should resolve through other processes of law.

4. I have no doubt that the afore stand of the Police is

the most apposite in the given circumstances because, they

are not authorized to enter into the disputes between the

parties as mentioned above. Their only obligation is to ensure

that the law and order is maintained and that internecine

disputes do not degenerate into a scenario of breach of peace, WP(C) NO. 14146 OF 2024

causing nuisance to the locality itself.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition,

directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that law and order is

maintained in the area in question and that no threat,

intimidation or obstruction is caused, either to the petitioner

or his employees, or to the functioning of the shop; however,

with liberty being reserved to both sides to invoke and pursue

any remedy that may be legally available to them before the

alternative forum/Court; for which, all rival contentions are

left open.

The 3rd respondent - Superintendent of Police, will

oversee the afore directions and ensure that there is no

breach of them by any person and this shall be done on a

continuous basis.

Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE lsn WP(C) NO. 14146 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14146/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit -P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2017 Exhibit -P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFESSION TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE ALWAYE MUNICIPALITY FOR THE YEAR 2023-24 Exhibit -P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ALWAYE MUNICIPALITY DATED 25.03.2024 AUTHORIZING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO COLLECT FEES FROM THE VEGETABLE VENDORS Exhibit-P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.04.2024 Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02.04.2024 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4(a) A true copy of the interim order dated 11.09.2023 in WP(C)29633/2023 Exhibit R4(b) A true copy of the counter affidavit dated 14.11.2023 filed by the Aluva Municipality in WP(C) 29633/2023 Exhibit R4(c) A true copy of the judgment dated 10.07.2023 in WP(C) 21955/2023 Exhibit R4(d) A true copy of the Counter affidavit filed by the Aluva Municipality in RP 1111/2023 in WP(C) 21955/2023 dated 13/12/2023

RUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN