Spencer’S Retail Ltd. vs The Superintendent Of Police on 25 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26111 of 2007(H)


1. SPENCER'S RETAIL LTD.,CORPORATE MALL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITI

                For Petitioner  :SRI.H.B.SHENOY

                For Respondent  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :25/04/2008

 O R D E R
        C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ.
                       -------------------------
                     WP(C) No. 26111 of 2007
                   ---------------------------------
              Dated, this the 25th day of April, 2008

                           J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran Nair, J.

This writ petition is filed for direction to respondents 1 to 3 to

grant adequate police protection to the petitioner to run the shop in

a peaceful environment. Even though learned counsel for 4th

respondent submitted that only peaceful demonstration is

conducted by them, learned Government Pleader submitted that

two crimes are registered against those who created problems for

petitioner’s shop. Registration of crimes prove beyond doubt that

there is violance against the petitioner’s running the shop. Even

though learned Government Pleader submitted that, as of now,

there is no law and order problem, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that there is likelihood of obstruction. The so

called peaceful demonstration by the 4th respondent, to our mind, is

also illegal because petitioner is carrying on bonafide business in

the area and what is opposed is business competition with members

of the 4th respondent. Fair competition in business prevents

monopoly and will largely promote consumer interests. Therefore,

we feel, petitioner should be encouraged by Governmental

WP(C) No. 26111/2007
-2-

Agencies. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing

respondents 2 & 3 to provide police protection, as and when

required, for the peaceful conduct of business by the petitioner.

Police protection should be granted not only against 4th respondent

but also against anyone standing in the way of conduct of

petitioner’s retail outlet.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

jg