Ramachandran Nair vs The Station House Officer on 7 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10759 of 2009(L)


1. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. FAZAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

3. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :07/04/2009

 O R D E R
              P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

                    -------------------------------

                     W.P.(C) No. 10759 of 2009

                    -------------------------------

                   Dated this the 7th April, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

Petitioner alleges illegal obstruction caused by

respondents 2 and 3 for running a poultry farm. Exts.P1 to P3

are licences issued and according to him, for the past four years,

he has been running the poultry farm, in accordance with law.

But now the party respondents along with their men are causing

physical obstruction, adversely affecting the right to life of the

petitioner.

2. Respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance

through counsel. They submit that the licences had already

expired and so long as there is no valid licence as on today, the

petitioner is not entitled to continue to run the poultry farm. The

licence issued by the Panchayat, Ext.P2, has already expired.

The petitioner would submit that he has already submitted an

W.P.(C) No.10759 of 2009

2

application for renewal. In the circumstances, we are impleading

the Kallara Grama Panchayat suo motu for issuing the directions

as follows.

3. The renewal application, if any, submitted by

the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law, after

hearing respondents 2 and 3 also. In case, the renewal is finally

granted by the Grama Panchayat, the petitioner will be entitled to

continue to run the poultry farm without the same being

obstructed by respondents 2 and 3. However, this will be

subjected to the right, if any, of respondents 2 and 3 to approach

the higher authorities. The police shall abide by the licence, if

any, issued in favour of the petitioner, and in which event,

protection shall be afforded to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.

nj.