IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32637 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.N. SUGUNAN, PUTHUVAL NIKATHIL HOUSE, OMALLOOR, LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, WARD NO.3, KARUPPANTHARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. K.P. ABEYMON, PERIYATH HOUSE, MADHURAVELY P.O., AYAMKUDY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.RAJ MOHAN R.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, VAIKOM. 2. EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. JOSE ULLATTIL, ZURICH INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, KURUPPUNTHARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R6 BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32637 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The two petitioners claim that they are activists of the Kerala Madya Virudha Samithi of Kottayam district. The 1st petitioner, the counsel says, is a harijan. They complained that a hotel of the 6th respondent is within the prohibited distance from a Harijan/Girijan colony in terms of the Abkari laws and the said hotel cannot therefore, have an FL-3 licence. The 6th respondent, even at this stage, appears through counsel and offers that he is prepared to take out a commission if issued by this Court, but, may be saved from suffering the expenditure for that, if he ultimately succeeds the Writ Petition. The Excise Circle Inspector, Vaikom, is also present to instruct the learned Government Pleader. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader, on instruction, that by measurements, the hotel of the 6th respondent is much beyond the prohibited distance and all relevant facts and factors will be taken into consideration, while the questions of grant of permit is ultimately decided. The statutory rules provide for appropriate report by the W.P.(C) No.32637/2009 2 subordinate authority and ultimate decision by superior authority. This will be again followed by government notifications. With this, all that is required is that the official respondents will ensure that no law is violated in relation to any application for licence of the 6th respondent. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ps