Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.V.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.V.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS - WP(C) No. 17881 of 2007(D) [2007] RD-KL 10264 (14 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17881 of 2007(D)

1. K.V.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOF OF POLICE,

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

7. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

8. SUJAY, S/O KARUNAKARAN, SUJAY BHAVAN,

9. BINI, CHARUVILA VEETTIL,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.THOMAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

Dated :14/06/2007

O R D E R

P.R.RAMAN & K.HEMA, JJ.

W.P.(C).NO.17881 OF 2007

Dated this the 14th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Raman,J.

Petitioner obtained a licence, Ext.P1 for conducting Toddy Shop No.24 in Chathannoor Excise Range. Ext.P1 is dated 1/6/2007. It is submitted by the petitioner that the place where the shop is conducted is an unobjectionable place. Though the petitioner commenced the business on 2/6/2007, later on 9/6/2007 under the leadership of respondents 8 and 9 some persons came to the toddy shop and physically obstructed the conduct of the shop and destroyed toddy, furniture and utensils by using deadly weapons. Though Ext.P2 petition was given to the Police Authorities, no effective steps were taken so as to enable the petitioner to continue the business in terms of Ext.P1. Hence this writ petition.

3. We issued notice to respondents 2 to 9 by special messenger and it was duly served. No one has chosen to enter appearance and contest the matter.

3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submits that it is a duly licenced shop. W.P.(C).NO.17881/2007

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to give necessary protection to the petitioner so as to enable him to conduct the shop in the licenced premises strictly in accordance with the terms contained in Ext.P1, unobstructed by respondents 8 and 9 or their men. In case there is any grievance for respondents 8 and 9 in the matter of conducting the shop, they can seek redressal of their grievance in accordance with law by approaching any statutory authorities. We make it clear that the statutory authorities may consider such petitions, if any, filed and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. K.HEMA, Judge. kcv.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.