IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37341 of 2009(K) -------------------------- STC.306/2009 of J.M.F.C.,KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE BEVARAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. SASTAH KRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M. RAGHU RAMAN, SHOP IN CHARGE, FL.1 SHOP NO. 227, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KUTHUPARAMBA MUNIVIPALITY, KANNUR, 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LSG DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC FOR R1 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.37341 of 2009 (K) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The only issue raised in this writ petition is whether licence under Section 447 of the Panchayat Raj Act is required to be obtained by the petitioner for locating their foreign liquor retail shop within the premises of the respondent Municipality. The case of the petitioners is that being a Government Corporation, in view of Section 442 they are not required to obtain such a licence. 2. This very issue has been considered by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.23258/2008 dated 12/01/2010, and this Court has held that a licence is required to be obtained, and that the petitioner being only a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, cannot claim the benefit available to the Government alone under Section 442. On that reasoning the writ petition was dismissed. Therefore, by the above judgment, the issue raised is covered against the petitioners herein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that WP(C) No.37341/2009 -2- once the Excise Authorities grants licence, the Municipality cannot deny licence objecting to the location of the shop. 4. In my view, that is a premature grievance for the reason that the petitioners have not so far made any application to the Municipality. Once an application is received, it is up to the Municipality to take a decision either way. In such event, if the decision is adverse, then only can the petitioner have this grievance. Therefore, that grievance does not arise for consideration in this writ petition. 5. However, having regard to the fact that the writ petition was pending before this Court, I think it is only appropriate that the petitioners should be given a reasonable time to make an application to the Municipality for obtaining licence. Therefore, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to make an application to the 1st respondent for obtaining licence under Section 447, and that if such an application is made within two weeks from today, the Municipality shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. WP(C) No.37341/2009 -3- In the meantime, interim order passed by this Court on 23/12/2009 staying further proceedings in S.T.C.No.306/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koottuparamba will remain in force. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg