Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchPetition allowed; relief granted with direction...

P. Raju & B. Sathyan v. Circle Inspector of Police, Karunagappally Circle; Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally; Thankamani; Rajappan; Vasanti; Sudarsanan & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.18063 of 2016 (G)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Acting Chief Justice
  • K. T. Sankaran, J.
Judgment Date
2016-09-06
Court Decision / Holding
WP(C) 18063/2016 allowed; petitioners’ relief granted. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to ensure no obstruction by respondents 3-6 or anyone claiming under them for the smooth conduct of the petitioners’ business based on Exhibit P1 licence and Exhibit P2 renewal. The judgment is expressly made subject to the outcome of WP(C) No.18514/2016 (No interim order had been granted in that matter).
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; relief granted with directions to ensure unobstructed operation of Toddy Shop No.30 based on existing licences; judgment subject to WP(C) No.18514/2016.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P. Raju
  • B. Sathyan

Respondents

  • The Circle Inspector of Police, Karunagappally Circle, Karunagappally, Kollam 691 502
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally, Kollam 691 502
  • Thankamani
  • Rajappan
  • Vasanthi
  • Sudarsanan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. ASP. Kurup
  • • Sri. Sadchith.P.Kurup

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. P. P. Thajudeen

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No.18063/2016) concerns the operation of Toddy Shop No.30 at Karunagappally Excise Range, under licence 88/2015-16 (Exhibit P1) and its renewal for 2016-17 (Exhibit P2). Petitioners, licensees, allege obstruction by respondents 3 and 4 (Thankamani and Rajappan) who are on inimical terms, and contend they lack authority to obstruct the business. Respondent 5 (Vasanthi) sought impleadment claiming the petitioners do not possess a licence under the Dangerous and Offensive Trades & Factories Rules, 1996; she argues the D&O licensing requirement applies. Petitioners rely on Unnikrishnan A.G. v. Commissioner of Excise (2014 (1) KHC 140) to argue that if the toddy shop existed before 25.11.2012, Panchayat licensing under the D&O Rules is not mandatory. Respondent 6 (Sudarsanan) and other added respondents are similarly challenged on licence status and the alleged lack of continuous operation since 2008-09. The court, placing emphasis on the Unnikrishnan decision and noting absence of interim relief in related matter WP(C) 18514/2016, allows the petition and directs authorities to ensure unobstructed operation based on Exhibits P1 and P2, while clarifying the judgment is subject to WP(C)18514/2016.

Provisions of Law Cited

Dangerous and Offensive Trades & Factories Rules, 1996 (D&O Rules, 1996)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the existing Exhibit P1 licence (No. 88/2015-16) and its renewal Exhibit P2 authorize lawful operation of Toddy Shop No.30. They allege obstruction by respondents 3 and 4 and assert there is no legal basis for such obstruction. Relying on Unnikrishnan A.G. v. Commissioner of Excise (2014 (1) KHC 140), they argue that if the toddy shop existed before 25.11.2012, the Panchayat cannot require licensing under the D&O Rules, 1996. Exhibit P12 is cited to show prior licence status, though its applicability is disputed. They submit there is no continuous functioning evidence since 2008-09, and the related WP 18514/2016 is pending; thus relief should be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that the petitioners do not have a valid licence under the D&O Rules, 1996 and that Exhibit P12 relates to different parties. They contend that there is no proof of uninterrupted operation of Toddy Shop No.30 since 2008-09, and that impleaded 5th respondent’s challenge to the licence should be considered. They relied on records (EXT.R5 series and EXT.R6) to show prior orders and communications questioning the licence status.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Unnikrishnan A.G. v. Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram and another(2014 (1) KHC 140)PositiveCited to support the proposition that if a toddy shop existed before 25.11.2012, licensing under the D&O Rules, 1996 is not mandatory; used to justify granting relief.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. Raju & B. Sathyan v. Circle Inspector of Police, Karunagappally Circle; Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally; Thankamani; Rajappan; Vasanti; Sudarsanan & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938 ## WP(C).No. 18063 of 2016 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: - --------------------- 1. P.RAJU AGED 50,S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN, PANICKASSRIL HOUSE, CLAPPANA, KARUNGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 2. B SATHYAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, AKHIL BHAVANAM, MUZHUNGODI, THODIYOOR SOUTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT ## BY ADVS.SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP RESPONDENTS: - ---------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNAGAPPALLY CIRCLE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 691 502 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 691 502 3. THANKAMANI - AGED 62,W/O. LATE CHANDRADRAN, NANDANAM, PADANNAKKULAM K.S PURAM P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY 690 544 4. RAJAPPAN AGED 78,S/O. RAMAN, MANNARAYYATH, VADAKKETHARA, PADANNAKKULAM, K.S PURAM P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY 690 544 Addl. 5. VASANTHI, W/O SURENDRAN, ASWATHI NIVAS, SOUTH ATHINAD, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2.6.2016 IN - I.A.NO.6797/2016 W.P.(C) No.18063/2016 Addl. 6. SUDARSANAN, MANNARATH THEKKETHIL, PUNNAKULAM,P.O., K.S.PURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2.6.2016 IN I.A.NO.6938/2016 RADDL5 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RADDL 7 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) RADDL 7 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD RADDL 7 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RADDL 7 BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RADDL 7 BY ADV. SRI.ELIAS KURIAN RADDL 7 BY ADV. SMT.SHYNI GEORGE RADDL 7 BY ADV. SMT.P.S.SIJI R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18063 of 2016 (G) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXT.P1 : COPY OF LICENCE DATED 17-2-2016 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PETITIONERS FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16 EXT.P2 : COPY OF RENEWAL OF LICENCE FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17 EXT.P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 5-5-2016 GIVEN BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ## ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS: EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.9300/2007 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.3.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.13225/2010 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.26355/2013 EXT.P7: COPY OF REPORT DATED 17.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY EXT.P8: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.35477/2015 EXT.P9: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.8.2015 IN WP(C) NO.25332/2015 EXT.P10: COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 2.1.2016 ISSUED BY KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT - EXT.P11: COPY OF WRIT PETITION NO.18514/2016 DATED 27.5.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P12: COPY OF LICENCE DATED 16.4.2008 ISSUED TO TODDY SHOP NO.30 ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : ----------------------------------- EXT.R5(a) : COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.9300/2007 DATED 20.3.2007. EXT.R5(b) : COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C) NO.13225/2010 DATED 16.4.2010 EXT.R5(c) : COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.26355/2013 DATED 18.11.2013 EXT.R5(d) : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.R1.03/16 DATED 28.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHINADU. EXT.R5(e) :COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K75057/16 DATED 27.5.2016 EXT.R5(f) : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K7-5067/16 DATED 27.5.2016 WP(C).No. 18063 of 2016 (G) ---------------------------- EXT.R6(a) : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K7-5057/16 DATED 27.5.2016 EXT.R6(b) : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.K7 5171/16 DATED 1.6.2016 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE # **MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, AG. C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.** ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18063 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2016 ## _**JUDGMENT**_ ## _**K.T.Sankaran, J.**_ The petitioners are licensees of toddy shop No.30 of Karunagappally Excise Range situated in Puthiyakavu, the licence number being 88/2015-16 (Exhibit P1). It is stated by the petitioners that Exhibit P1 licence is in respect of the toddy shop that was shifted to building No.KSP XIV/I, which is a building situated in Adinadu Village. It is stated that Exhibit P1 licence was renewed for the year 2016-2017 as per Exhibit P2. The allegation is that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are on enmical terms with the petitioners, obstructed the running of the toddy shop. It is also stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no authority to prevent the petitioners from conducting the W.P.(C) No.18063/16 2 business. Though representations were made to the police authorities, no assistance was offered to remove the obstruction caused by respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. There is no appearance for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. One Vasanthi filed an application to implead herself and she was accordingly impleaded as additional respondent No.5. Learned counsel appearing for the additional fifth respondent submitted that the petitioners do not have a licence issued by the Panchayat under the (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades & Factories) Rules, 1996 and therefore, they cannot run the toddy shop. In answer, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Unnikrishnan A.G. v. Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram and another : (2014(1) KHC 140)** to contend that if the toddy shop was in existence as on 25.11.2012, the Panchayat cannot insist on obtaining a licence W.P.(C) No.18063/16 3 under the D & O Rules, 1996. In support of the contention that toddy shop No.30 was established before 2012, the petitioners relied on Exhibit P12, the licence granted in respect of T.S.No.30. 4. Learned counsel for the additional fifth respondent submitted that Exhibit P12 was issued in favour of other persons and therefore, the petitioners cannot make use of or take shelter under Exhibit P12. It is also submitted that there is nothing to indicate that T.S.No.30 was functioning since 200809 continuously till the issue of Exhibit P1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fifth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.18514 of 2016, challenging the shifting of the toddy shop No.30 and seeking to restrain the functioning of the toddy shop. But no interim order was granted in that Writ Petition in favour of the fifth respondent. It is submitted that W.P.(C) No.18514 of 2016 is W.P.(C) No.18063/16 4 pending. 6. In the light of the decision in **Unnikrishnan A.G.** **v. Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram and another : (2014 (1) KHC 140)** and also taking note of the fact that no interim order was granted in W.P.(C) No.18514 of 2016 filed by the fifth respondent, we are of the view that it is just and proper to grant the relief prayed for in this Writ Petition in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There will be a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to ensure that no obstruction is caused by respondent Nos.3 and 4 or any other persons claiming under them and also the fifth respondent, who got herself impleaded, for the smooth conducting of the business by the petitioners on the basis of Exhibit P1 licence and Exhibit P2 renewal. Since the fifth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.18514 of 2016 against the W.P.(C) No.18063/16 5 petitioners, challenging the grant of licence, it is made clear that the judgment in this Writ Petition would be subject to the result of W.P.(C) No.18514 of 2016. **Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Acting Chief Justice** **K.T.Sankaran** **Judge** csl/7.9