IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17926 of 2008(H)
1. MESSRS.RELIANCE FRESH LIMITED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
4. KERALA VYPARI VYVASSAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI
5. PARUR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
6. DEMOCRATIC YOUTH FEDERATION OF INDIA
7. SAMARA SAMITHI, CONVENOR, COUNCILLOR
8. SOLIDARITY, CHENDAMANGALAM KAVALA
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 17926 OF 2008-H
-----------------------------------------
Dated 24th June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is a company, which proposes to start a retail outlet for
the sale of provisions and consumer goods in North Paravur. It submits, it
has the necessary licences for running the same. The store was inaugurated
on 19.4.2008. On that day, there was a massive demonstration before the
store under the leadership of respondents 4 to 8, which practically crippled
its functioning. The protesters indulged in violence and therefore, a crime
was registered by the police. Because of the obstruction, the store could not
be opened. Another attempt was made on 9.5.2008, to start the functioning
of the store. On that day also, there was violence under the leadership of
respondents 4 to 8. Again the police registered a crime. Though
representations were filed before the police for protection for running the
store, no effective steps were taken by them. Therefore, this writ petition is
filed, mainly, seeking the following relief:
WPC 17926/08 2
“A. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1
to 3 to afford adequate protection to the conduct of business by
the petitioner at the premises bearing building No.XXI/146,
147, 148 and 149, Ground Floor, Mampilly Tower, Varapuzha-
Paravoor Road, North Paravoor, to the life of its employees and
the articles kept in the shop and generally to enable smooth
conduct of business operations without hindrance or
obstruction from respondents 4 to 8 or any persons acting
under them or acting at their behest.”
2. The 5th respondent Parur Merchants’ Association submitted that its
members are holding only peaceful demonstrations and public meetings to
protest against the incursion of monopolies into retail trade. Their presence
in the field will affect the business of the members of the Association. So,
to safeguard their interest, these meetings and dharnas are organized in a
peaceful manner. The allegations of violence etc., are unfounded. The
President of the Association has been made an accused in one of the crimes
unnecessarily, even though he was nowhere near the scene of occurrence. It
is also submitted on behalf of the 5th respondent that the petitioner is
engaging retired police officers, as its security guards. In fact, they are
threatening the demonstrators and if police protection is ordered, with the
support of the police, they will manhandle the people of the locality, who
are holding only peaceful demonstrations.
3. The 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying the
allegations of the petitioner and contending that its members are only
WPC 17926/08 3
holding peaceful demonstrations to protest against the entry of monopolies
into retail trade.
4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that
as and when information was lodged regarding the commission of
cognizable offence before the police, crimes were registered. It is also
submitted that the protesters are only holding peaceful demonstrations and
public meetings.
5. Under our constitutional scheme, the petitioner, like any other
person, has the right to run a business. If its business flourishes, it will
affect the business of others. But, the affected persons cannot physically
obstruct the functioning of the store run by the petitioner. So, if there is any
physical obstruction to the functioning of the store, by preventing ingress
and egress, the petitioner may inform the 3rd respondent. In that event, the
3rd respondent shall remove the obstruction. But,the police shall not
interfere with the peaceful demonstrations, dharnas or meetings organized
by respondents 4 to 8 or other persons objecting to the petitioner’s entry into
retail trade. They have also a fundamental right to hold such demonstrations
and propagate their ideas, so as to persuade the customers not to go and
patronise the petitioner. If the security guards of the petitioner indulge in
high-handed or criminal actions, respondents 4 to 8 can bring the same to
WPC 17926/08 4
the notice of the 3rd respondent. In that event also, the 3rd respondent shall
take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Nm/