C.Vasu vs Keezhur-Chavassery Grama … on 21 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36859 of 2009(B)


1. C.VASU, PRIYA HOTEL, CITY CENTRE
                      ...  Petitioner
2. U.P.ASHRAF, A.S.TRADERS, CITY CENTRE
3. V.A.ZAKARIA, VALLITHODU TRADERS
4. A.P.MOHANDAS, DEEPTHI BAKERY
5. A.MANOJ, E-SOLUTION INTERNET CAFE
6. AUGUSTINE THOMAS, APOLLO TEXTILES
7. M.P.THOMAS, KOTTIYOOR OPTICALS
8. A.K.BABU, C/O.DR.K.P.SATHYAGOPAL
9. P.SUGATHAN,C/O.DR.BHARGHAVAN,
10. M.K.GIRISH, SINDHU PHOTOSTATS

                        Vs



1. KEEZHUR-CHAVASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRITTY

4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY

5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY,

6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SARVOTHAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :21/12/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.36859 OF 2009
                  -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009


                              JUDGMENT

Notice to the first respondent dispensed with, preserving

its right for re-hearing of the matter, if aggrieved. Learned

Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 to 6.

The complaint of the petitioners is about unauthorised

public meetings and congregations, including staging of

Dharnas, in such a manner as it results in obstruction and

interference with the fundamental right to conduct trade etc.

They also complain that there is serious sound pollution.

Particular reference is made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners to the judgments of this Court, as referred to in

ground A of the writ petition, to state that there cannot be any

such obstructing activities. Under such circumstances, the third

respondent will look into the complaint of the petitioners and if

any directions are found necessary, they shall be immediately

WPC.36859/09

2

issued and enforced to ensure that there is no interference with

the commercial activities and also other needs of the public. The

first respondent will also look into whether a separate area could

be earmarked elsewhere for the purpose of public meetings. All

other issues are left open. The writ petition is ordered

accordingly.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.28/12.