Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By ... vs K. Balu & Anr on 15 December, 2016

Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Kerala High Court
Sajitha T vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2016
        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

        WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

                      WP(C).NO. 4351 OF 2017 (T)
                      ---------------------------


PETITIONERS:
-------------

          1. SAJITHA T.,
            AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. HAMSA THEKKETHIL HOUSE,
            MOOCHIKKAL, VALANCHERI P.O., 676552
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

          2. C H ABUYUSUF GURUKKAL,
            AGED 59 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, MADHYA VIRUDHA ACTION COUNCIL,
            S/O. C.H. ALIKKUTTI GURUKKAL, CHANGAMPALLI HOUSE,
            KATTIPPARUTHI, VALANCHERI P.O., 676552
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

          3. JALALUDHEEN M,
            S/O. MAMMI HAJI, MULAKKAL HOUSE,MOOCHIKKAL,
            VALANCHERI P.O., 676552
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

          4. K K ABDUL SALAM,
            AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD ABDU,
            KOOZHIKUNNATH(HOUSE), KAATTIPPERAKKI,
            VALANCHERI P.O, PIN - 676552, MALAPPURAM.

          5. ASHRAF AMBALATHINGAL,
            AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, THOZHUVANNOOR P.O,
            VALANCHERI PIN - 676552.


            BY ADVS.SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
                    SRI.P.JAHANGEER
                    SRI.K.M.ANEESH
                    SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM
                    SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

          1. STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

          2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
            COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

WP(C).NO. 4351 OF 2017 (T)
---------------------------

          3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
            MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

          4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE TIRUR,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 101.

          5. THE VALANCHERY MUNICIPALITY,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALANCHERRY,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,(VALANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
            UPGRADED AS MUNICIPALITY) 676 107

          6. SWAGATH INN,
            VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
            MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. JOSE J. MANJAL, AGED 47 YEARS,
            S/O. M.D. JOHN(LATE).


            R6  BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
            R1-R4  BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.C. VIDHYA

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION  ON
01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).NO. 4351 OF 2017 (T)
---------------------------

                                APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1     TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
               DATED 31-3-2016.

EXHIBIT P2     TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
               DATED 11-5-2016.

EXHIBIT P3     TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL DATED 9-5-2016.

EXHIBIT P4     TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 13482/2016(I)
               DATED 15-6-2016.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

EXT.R6(A)     PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2016 IN W.P.(C)
              NO.29774/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.


                                                           //TRUE COPY//


                                                           P.A. TO JUDGE



DST



                   P.B. SURESH KUMAR,J.

        = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                  W.P.(C) No. 4351 of 2017

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

              Dated this the 1st day of March, 2017


                          J U D G M E N T

The grievance of the petitioners concerns the steps taken by the sixth respondent to establish a beer and wine parlour in the premises referred to in the writ petition. When the matter came up for admission on 13.02.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sixth respondent has commenced the beer and wine parlour even without obtaining licence from the competent authority under the Foreign Liquor Rules. In the light of the said submission, an interim order was passed directing respondents 3 and 4 to prevent the conduct of the beer and wine parlour by the sixth respondent. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the sixth respondent has not commenced the beer and wine parlour as contended by the petitioners and that the authorities under the Foreign Liquor Rules would not W.P.(C) No. 4351 of 2017 -: 2 :- permit anybody to conduct beer and wine parlour without a licence. There is nothing on record to indicate that the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader is incorrect.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that the sixth respondent is attempting to obtain a licence to run a beer and wine parlour violating the directions issued by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu & Anr. [2017 (1) KHC 26]. It is conceded that the application preferred by the sixth respondent for licence under the Foreign Liquor Rules is pending consideration before the Commissioner of Excise. An earlier writ petition, viz, WP.(C).No.3144 of 2017 filed raising identical contention has been disposed of by this Court directing the Commissioner of Excise to consider the said aspect also while considering the application for licence preferred by the sixth respondent. The said judgment of this Court substantially redresses the grievance of the petitioners.

3. It is seen that the application preferred by the W.P.(C) No. 4351 of 2017 -: 3 :- sixth respondent for grant of licence is being considered by the Commissioner of Excise in the light of Ext.P4 judgment of this Court. The petitioners have a grievance that Ext.P4 is a judgment rendered by this Court without adverting to the relevant aspects. If Ext.P4 judgment is one rendered by this Court without adverting the relevant aspects, the petitioners have to work out their remedies, in accordance with law. The entitlement of the sixth respondent as found in Ext.P4 judgment cannot be permitted to be attacked collaterally.

The writ petition, in the said circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge