JUDGMENT : N. ANIL KUMAR, J. The issue involved in these three cases is closely interlinked and hence they are dealt with together. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these writ petitions, it is advantageous to set out the facts in detail including the background of facts, which have led to the filing of these writ petitions. Parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' and 'the respondents' according to their status in WP(C) 30081/2018 unless otherwise stated. 2. In W.P(C) No.30081/2018, the petitioner is one of the two licensees of Toddy Shop Nos.56/2014-15 of Chalissery in Group No.XIV of Thrithala Excise Range from 2014-2015 onwards. The toddy shop was functioning in the building comprised in Sy.No.237/2 of Chalissery Village, which was situated very near to the State Highway. In State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu [Civil Appeal Nos.12164-12166 of 2016] dtd.15.12.2016, the Apex Court issued orders interdicting the functioning of the liquor shops within a distance of 500 metres from a National or State Highway beyond the date 31.3.2017. All States and Union Territories were mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. As directed, the petitioner closed the shop room No.56/2014-15 Chalissery since it was within the 500 metres from the State highway w.e.f. 1.4.2017. In the above mentioned Civil Appeals by order dtd. 23.2.2018, the Apex Court clarified that the State Governments can take decisions in respect of Panchayaths having the characteristics of Municipality, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the nature and extent of development in the area, and the object underlined the direction prohibiting the sale of liquor on National and State Highways. The Apex Court left it open to individual licensees to submit their representations to the competent authorities in the State. Meanwhile, the landlord had demolished the building where the petitioner's toddy shop was functioning. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Apex Court, Ext.P1 order was issued by the Government of Kerala directing the Commissioner, Excise to issue follow-up orders. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent and after conducting necessary enquiry, permission was granted to relocate the shop in new building No.X/553 comprised in Sy.No.340/1,2,3,4 of Chalissery Village as per Ext.P2. 3. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent and after conducting necessary enquiry, permission was granted to relocate the shop in new building No.X/553 comprised in Sy.No.340/1,2,3,4 of Chalissery Village as per Ext.P2. 3. According to the petitioner, When the shops started functioning, respondents 3 and 4 and others started shouting slogans in front of the shop, the vehicles carrying toddy to the shop were intercepted, the employees and customers were physically prevented from entering the shop, and their ingress and egress were obstructed. They also threatened using abusive and filthy languages to manhandle them. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint to the first respondent and requested to remove the obstruction by providing adequate and effective police protection to the life and properties of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the petitioner in WP(C) 31378/2018 contended that the area in which the proposed toddy shop is to be started by the sixth respondent, is a densely populated area and the intention of the sixth respondent is to start the same in an illegally constructed structure which will lead to serious safety issues in future. It is further contended that the sixth respondent has already influenced the Panchayath as well as the Excise Officials in order to start functioning of the toddy shop in violation of the statutory provisions. The sixth respondent in WPC 31378/2018 is the landlord of the building bearing Door No.X/553, situated in Sy.No.341/1 34 of Chalissery Village, wherein Ext.P2 order was issued by the second respondent to run a toddy shop. 5. In WP(C) 37956/2018, Ext.P1 licence transferred in the name of the petitioner along with the order for shifting to the new location issued by the Excise Commissioner, Palakkad, is sought to be obstructed by the local people. Hence the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner's life and her workers and to have access to her premises covered under Ext.P1 licence. 6. Hence the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner's life and her workers and to have access to her premises covered under Ext.P1 licence. 6. The common contention of the party respondents is that the toddy shops in issue are situated in densely populated areas and that all the common occurrences in a toddy shop, like verbal abuses, public lewd remarks and lascivious profanities against women and children, vomiting and urinating in the pathway and surrounding premises, are creating a disgusting atmosphere in the locality and thereby cause threat and nuisance to the peaceful life of the residents. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the party respondents. 8. Adv.M.C.John, the learned counsel for the petitioner while supporting the legality and correctness of the proposed toddy shop that is to be started, contended that Ext.P2 order (in WP(C) No.30081/2018) was issued after thorough verification and also in strict compliance with Ext.P1 Government Order which itself has been issued pursuant to the order of the Apex Court. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel contended that the licence was renewed up to 31.3.2019 as per the Government policy reflected in GO(MS) No. 48/2018/TD dtd. 27.6.2018. In other words, the submission is that the petitioner is entitled to run the toddy shop in TS No.56/14-15 Chalissery in the present premises till 31.3.2019 on the strength of Ext.P2 order and licence issued by the authority competent under the Abkari Act and Rules framed thereunder. The submission is that the resistance of the party respondents causing protest against the commencement of the new toddy shop infringes his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to practise any profession, or to carry any occupation, trade or business. 9. On the other hand, Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.31378 of 2018, contended that the concept of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Art.21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. 9. On the other hand, Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.31378 of 2018, contended that the concept of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Art.21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. The learned counsel argued that in the decision reported in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administator, Union Territory of Delhi [ (1981) 1 SCC 608 ], the Apex Court held that the fundamental right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution of India, which is the most precious human right and which forms the ark of all other rights must be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality, which may endure for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and worth of the human person. Learned counsel then elaborated the aforementioned submissions by referring to the decision reported in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [ (2016)7 SCC 761 ] and reiterated that the Constitution of India guarantees human rights that are contained in Part III with the caption 'Fundamental Rights'. Thus, it is argued that human dignity is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M.C. John submitted a compilation of the cases in support of his contentions. These decisions are Bosco Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2007 (4) KHC 116 ], Unnikrishnan A.G. v. Commissioner of Excise, Tvm. and another [ 2014 (1) KHC 140 ], Paulose v. Kappur Grama Panchayat [ 2015 (2) KLT 165 ] and an unreported decision in WP(C) No.39423 of 2015. 11. Before we proceed to examine the various submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to take note of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.P.R.Act') which have a bearing on the controversy. The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is required to take licence as provided in the Panchayath Raj ( Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996(Kerala)) (hereinafter referred to as 'the D&O Rules') from the respondent-Grama Panchayath. The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is required to take licence as provided in the Panchayath Raj ( Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996(Kerala)) (hereinafter referred to as 'the D&O Rules') from the respondent-Grama Panchayath. The D&O Rules are issued by the Government of Kerala by virtue of S.R.O.No.76/96 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 232,233 and 234 of the K.P.R.Act read with Section 254 thereof. Section 232(1) of the K.P.R.Act needs reproduction in verbatim (infra). “232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence.-- (1)The Village Panchayat may notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which, in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by the (Secretary) and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence : Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication.” 12. To answer the point, we have to look at the wording of Section 232(1) of the K.P.R.Act. In our considered view, the language of Section 232(1) makes it clear that the Village Panchayath should notify the purpose for which the licence as provided in the section is required to be obtained. 13. In the decision reported in Bosco Antony v. State of Kerala and Others, [ 2007(4) KHC 116 ], a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “4. Heard learned counsel on both sides. As long as Ext.P1 licence remains in force, the petitioner may be entitled to run the shop, subject to satisfying the other statutory requirements, if any. For running any business included in Schedule I of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rule, 1996, licence under the said Rules is required. “Abkari Shops Storing and Selling” is item No.139 in Schedule I of the above said rules. So, the petitioner is bound to take licence under the said Rules for running the shop. “Abkari Shops Storing and Selling” is item No.139 in Schedule I of the above said rules. So, the petitioner is bound to take licence under the said Rules for running the shop. But, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that earlier there were express provisions under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of S.232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, concerning grant of permission for running toddy shops within the jurisdiction of a Grama Panchayat. Since those provisions were later deleted with effect from 24/03/1999, the learned counsel points out that the above Rules insofar as they concern toddy shops, have no efficacy. But we notice that even in the absence of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of S.232, the remaining provisions contained in sub-section(1) of the said section of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act support the inclusion of abkari shops under the Schedule to the Rules. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is plainly untenable. So even though the petitioner has got Ext.P1 licence, he can run the toddy shop in the Panchayat area only after getting licence under the above said rules from the said Panchayat.” This Court held that even in the absence of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 232, the remaining provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 232 of the K.P.R. Act supports the inclusion of abkari shops under the schedule of the Rules. 14. In the decision reported in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P)Ltd.(M/s.) v. State of Kerala [ 2011(2) KHC 171 ], a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “41. Government have framed the Panchayath Raj (Licencing of Dangerous Trades) Rules, 1996. As per Section 232, it is for the local body to notify that a particular activity is offensive or dangerous to human health or property and in such a case, without licence from the Executive Authority, no person can use any area for such purposes as are notified, without licence...........” 15. Respondents-Panchayath do not have a case that the requisite notification as contemplated under Section 232 of the K.P.R. Act was issued. In our view, it is the primary duty, rather than statutory duty, of the Panchayath to maintain and give preference to the will of the people. It is submitted across the Bar that no such notification was issued by the Panchayath so far. In our view, it is the primary duty, rather than statutory duty, of the Panchayath to maintain and give preference to the will of the people. It is submitted across the Bar that no such notification was issued by the Panchayath so far. In the absence of Notification under Section 232(1) of the K.P.R.Act, the Panchayaths have no right to contend that the permission from the local authority is required to commence toddy shop. 16. So far as S.232 of the K.P.R. Act is concerned, it is feasible to refer to the law laid down in a decision reported in Poulose v. Kappur Grama Panchayat [ 2015 (2) KLT 165 ] and the unreported decision in WP(C) No. 39423 of 2015 wherein the principles in Paulose' case(supra) were reiterated by this Court. 17. In Paulose's case(supra), it was held that Section 232 only enables the Grama Panchayath to act on the notification of the Government in terms of Rule 3 of the D&O Rules, regarding the dangerous and offensive trades and then further notify within the limits of Panchayat, any areas where any specific trade or activity to be carried on only with prior permission or licence. In WP(C) NO. 39423/2015, this Court followed the dictum in Paulose' case (supra) and held that statute assigns the duty of notifying the trade to the Government and that of the area to the Grama Panchayath. The court reiterated the principle, which would help in testing the rules, adding that mere fact that a trade or activity is included under the rules framed by the Government would not enable the Panchayath to insist on a D&O licence for carrying on the trade or activity. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rajit in WP(C) No.31378 of 2018 submitted that it is the duty of the court to maintain and give preference to the welfare of the people of the locality, keeping in view of the safety and the morality of the people at large. According to the learned counsel, the licence applied before the Excise Official for the toddy shop bearing Door No.X/553 has absolutely no facilities for starting a toddy shop. More over, the learned counsel submits, the present building has extended into the puramboke land by encroaching upon the same and the existing old building is lying in a dilapidated condition. According to the learned counsel, the licence applied before the Excise Official for the toddy shop bearing Door No.X/553 has absolutely no facilities for starting a toddy shop. More over, the learned counsel submits, the present building has extended into the puramboke land by encroaching upon the same and the existing old building is lying in a dilapidated condition. True, pointing out all these anomalies, the local people filed representations before the Panchayath. The Secretary of Chalissery Grama Panchayat filed a counter affidavit before this Court admitting the receipt of the complaints from the local people. The Panchayath has already initiated proceedings as per Ext.R5(a) and Ext.R5(b) directing the petitioner to demolish unauthorised constructions made by them without obtaining requisite permission from the local authority. As per the scheme of the Panchayath Raj Act, the Panchayath is competent to take appropriate action in the interest of general public prohibiting unauthorised construction within the Panchayath. Such restriction is essentially regulatory in nature and it has no nexus or connection with the licence to run the toddy shop in the Panchayath area, as long as the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Abkari Rules do not prohibit such a course. 19. Taking note of the D&O Rules, we have to examine the question as to whether it is for the local authority to notify that a particular activity is offensive or dangerous to human health or property and in such a case, without licence from the executive authority, no person can use any area for such purposes as are notified without licence. According to the learned counsel, Sri. Rajit, as per the Schedule in accordance with Rule 3 of the D & O Rules, item No.139 is 'Abkari Shops ---- Storing and selling'. Having examined the Rule, it is true that the words 'offensive or dangerous to human life, health or property' must be construed in public interest. No doubt, the words 'ensure the safety and welfare of public at large' is designed to ensure the safety and welfare of the general public. As per Section 232 of the K.P.R. Act, it is for the local authority to notify that a particular activity is offensive and dangerous to human health or property. No doubt, the words 'ensure the safety and welfare of public at large' is designed to ensure the safety and welfare of the general public. As per Section 232 of the K.P.R. Act, it is for the local authority to notify that a particular activity is offensive and dangerous to human health or property. So far as Section 232 of the K.P.R. Act is concerned, that the Village Panchayath may notify that no place in the Panchayath area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the D & O Rules, which in the opinion of the Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life without a licence issued by the Secretary and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence. The word 'may' under Section 232 imposes a discretion on the Panchayath. Needless to say, the local authority may notify that a particular activity is offensive or dangerous to human health or property. Admittedly, such a notification has not been issued in this case. Further, the words 'likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life' indicate that absolute discretion is given to the Panchayath to select the items contained in the Schedule of D&O Rules after taking into consideration of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the Panchayath. Going by Schedule I, it is clear that biscuits-baking, preparing, keeping, storing or selling for human consumption other than for domestic use and bread-baking, preparing, keeping, storing or selling for human consumption other than for domestic use etc. are also found a place in Schedule I of the D&O Rules. The above items are unlikely to be offensive and dangerous to human life. 20. In our considered opinion, unless and until requisite notification as contemplated under Section 232(1) has been issued, there is no need to obtain any licence from the Grama Panchayath to run the toddy shop within its limits. We are of the view that those Panchayaths, who find themselves unable to issue requisite notification as contemplated under the Act and Rules, are not justified in contending that the toddy shops are generally a nuisance to the public at large. There is no legal prohibition for a citizen to carry on toddy business unless it is prohibited in accordance with law. 21. There is no legal prohibition for a citizen to carry on toddy business unless it is prohibited in accordance with law. 21. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the petitioners in WPC Nos.30081/2018 and 37956/2018 have a right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. While exercising jurisdiction for police protection, what we are concerned is only the failure of duty of the Police. In this case, there is certainly a failure of duty on the part of the Police. Though the petitioners obtained necessary licence to run the toddy shop in the Panchayath area from the competent authority, they are not in a position to run the toddy shop as the local people stage obstructions in front of the shop. In the result, WP(C) Nos.30081/2018 and 37956/2018 are disposed of directing the Police to grant protection to the petitioners to conduct toddy shops as long as the licences issued by the competent authority concerned remain valid in their favour. Needless to say, if the said licences are suspended or cancelled in accordance with law, the above direction to grant police protection will stand cancelled. We also make it clear that it is within the domain of the local authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law in case the respondents unauthorisedly constructed building encroaching upon the puramboke land. In view of the above, W.P(C) No. 31378 of 2018 is liable to be dismissed. We do so.