IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34697 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ C.M.RAVI, AGED 69 YEARS,S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, CHULLIYIL HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT,GOVT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, K.S.B.C.WARCHOUSE,KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR. 5. T.V.SADANANDA BAI, W/O.K.K.BABURAJ, KAKKANAT HOUSE, CO-OPERATIVE ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR - 20. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34697 OF 2008 (E) ==================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be FL-3 licencee. There appears to be disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, which were the subject matter of arbitration and the matter is now pending before the District Court. Ext.P5 is an order that was passed by the District Court, Trichur in AOP 188/07 by way of interim measure of protection, appointing the 5th respondent and the petitioner as Joint Receivers for conducting the business of the partnership firm. That order was confirmed by this court in Ext.P8 judgment. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 application seeking permission for transporting foreign liquor and on that application, 4th respondent made an endorsement to the following effect. “Application rejected. In the light of the judgment dated 29.10.2008 in Arbitration Appeal No.12 of 2008 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, joint application from the licensee as well as Smt.T.V.Sadananda Bai, W/o.Sri.K.K.Baburajan, Kakkanat House, Chembukavu, Thrissur is wanted.” 3. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed a reply by Ext.P10. However, he has also moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P11, invoking WPC 34697/08 :2 : Rule 40 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. In this writ petition, what the petitioner seeks is an expeditious order on Ext.P11 and in the meanwhile, an interim arrangement for the continued supply of liquor. 4. Now that in view of the endorsement on Ext.P9, petitioner has sought the interference of the 2nd respondent, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers Ext.P11 with notice and hearing to the petitioner, the 5th respondent and the parties thereto. This the 2nd respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. In the meanwhile, in order to maintain continuity of the business, it is directed that if the petitioner complies with the endorsement on Ext.P9, the 4th respondent shall consider the application made by the petitioner for permission to transport liquors, on merits and pass orders. 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 and 4 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp