Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2. The petitioner in W.P.No.42047 of 2016 would state that the Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram Police Station, had written a letter to the fourth appellant with regard to registration of a case in Crime No.259 of 2016 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 120B I.P.C, Sections 4(a) and 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3(1) and (4) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against Anandhakumar and 12 others and out of them, Anandhakumar, Karthick, Meganathan and Yuvaraj had been detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. It is further averred that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram Police Station, has written a letter dated 22.09.2016 to the petitioner stating about the lodging of the complaint by one Emarald Venkatachalam, a party functionary belonging to AIADMK party and the arrest and interrogation of the accused revealed that the Licencees of Shops No.7 and 8 are belonging to Alaikadal Nanbargal Group and they used to eve tease girls/women who are passing through the said shops and also indulging in unlawful activities and so also the accused concerned in the above said crime number and apprehending law and order problem, has requested the said official to close the said shops.

2.6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent in W.P.No.42047 of 2017/first appellant herein.

2.7. The learned Judge, after taking note of the facts and circumstances and after considering the rival submissions, found that in the impugned communication dated 22.09.2016 and 30.09.2016, it has not been stated that apart from the incident, they are also involved in throwing petrol bombs and what is not stated in the impugned notices/communications, cannot be improved by means of counter affidavit and further, in the F.I.R., there is no averment with regard to eve teasing of girls/women. The learned Judge, after taking note of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petitioners will not indulge in any such illegal acts and further taking into consideration that in pursuant to the verbal directions, the learned counsel has also produced four Demand Drafts for a sum of Rs.44,851/- and Rs.42,730/-, has directed the lifting of the seal with a further direction that the petitioners shall run the shops within a period of one week from the date of filing of undertaking and in the meantime, in case of repetition of illegal act, they can be proceeded with in accordance with law.

2.8. The official respondents in the writ petitions, aggrieved by the said directions, vide common order dated 29.11.2017, has filed these Writ Appeals.

3. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/official respondents would submit that one of the accused, namely Yuvaraj, Son of Veerasambu/first respondent in W.A.No.542 of 2018 has been named as accused in Crime No.259 of 2016 registered on the file of the Jalakandapuram Police Station and invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the F.I.R. and made a forceful submission that in the meeting, petrol bombs were thrown, which resulted in firing and one of the participants of the meeting was the then Hon'ble Minister for Public Works Department and the present Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and on enquiry, jurisdictional police came to know that there is an organization namely Alaikadal Nanbargal Group in which the accused as well as the writ petitioners are members and the shops run by the writ petitioners viz., Shop Nos.7 and 8 was used to commit the illegal act of eve teasing as and when girls/women pass by and that apart, they were also in arrears of licence amount and therefore, action has been taken strictly in accordance with law and also in the light of the conditions for allotment of shops while giving tender auction in their favour. In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the above said relevant facts have not been considered by the learned Judge while disposing of the writ petitions with observations and if the shops are allowed to open, it may put premium on the illegal acts committed by the writ petitioners and therefore, prays for interference.

4. Per contra, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioners would submit that with regard to the alleged act of eve teasing, admittedly no complaint whatsoever has been given and even in the F.I.R. in Crime No.259 of 2016, registered on the file of the Jalakandapuram Police Station, the writ petitioners have not been arrayed as accused and action has been taken by the fourth respondent due to the pressure exerted by local ruling party functionary and that is also evidenced through the counter affidavit. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in these Writ Appeals/Writ Petitioners that the arrears of licence amount, as ordered to be paid, has also been paid by way of four Demand Drafts and they were encashed also and in fairness, the fourth respondent ought to have reopened the shops and would further add that the writ petitioners as well as his family are solely dependant upon the income earned from running the said shops and therefore, prays that the lock and seal put up on the shops may be removed and the writ petitioner may be permitted to run the shops and also may be granted liberty to participate in the public auction to be held in future.