IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 46 of 2011(S) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31778/2010 Dated 18/10/2010 .................. PETITIONER : -------------------- REGHU.R @ REGHU MADATHIL, S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA,MADATHIL HOUSE, PARIMANAM, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR SRI.P.SANJAY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUBBAIAH (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) EXCISE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 001. 2. V.P.JOY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Contempt Case(C) No. 46 of 2011 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner alleges wilful non compliance of the directions of this Court in Annexure-1 judgment. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.K.Damodaran and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The matter relates to the application submitted by the petitioner to get licence for running a bar in the premises of his hotel. By Annexure-1 judgment, this Court directed the second respondent in the writ petition, who is the first respondent herein, to take a decision on Ext.P2 application in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 4. The contempt case was filed on 10-01-2011 and notice was ordered on 12-01-2011. 5. The first respondent filed an affidavit on 24-01- 2011, stating that the petitioner had submitted an application COC No.46/2011 : 2 : through proper channel requesting for grant of FL-3 licence to his hotel named “Hotel Regent Lake Palace”, Neendakara, Kollam, which was received in the office of the first respondent on 19-04-2010. The first respondent examined the application in detail and forwarded the same to the Government by letter dated 11-05-2010 with due recommendation for according sanction for FL-3 licence. It is pointed out that under Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, permission from Government is mandatory for issuing fresh FL-3 licence. 6. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that a complaint was received on 01-07-2010 from one Vikramakumar J, Atham, Kollam, alleging that the petitioner had constructed the hotel in the 'No Development Zone' of CRZ III, without obtaining prior approval from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority/ Ministry of Environment and Forest. Certain other allegations were also therein. The first respondent forwarded the letter to the Director, Department of Tourism, Government of India on 29-11-2010 COC No.46/2011 : 3 : for re-examining the 4 star classification awarded to the petitioner's hotel. It is stated that due to the same, delay was caused in the Government level for examining the contents of the said letter. 7. The second respondent has also filed an affidavit, wherein similar points have been raised. After referring to the said complaint, it is stated in paragraph 4 that the petitioner's Manager was served with a letter from the Government of India, Ministry of Tourism dated 14-01-2011, seeking certain explanations and the Government, by Ext.R2(b), returned the application to the Excise Commissioner on the plea that the same can be considered only after 4 star classification is confirmed by the Government of India. 8. It appears that based on Ext.R2(b), the Excise Commissioner passed an order on 08-02-2011, stating that the application and enclosures put in by Sri.R.Reghu for FL-3 licence to his hotel 'Regent Lak Palace', Neendakara are returned and rejected. It is stated therein that he is at liberty to apply for FL-3 licence to his hotel as and when he fulfills all COC No.46/2011 : 4 : the requirements under Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that really the complaint was procured to defeat the rights of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no violation of the Foreign Liquor Rules and CRZ Rules and, therefore, the Government and Excise Commissioner have really acted beyond their jurisdiction and the letter/complaint was taken as a ruse to reject the application. 10. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, directing the second respondent to consider the application and take a decision within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is evident from the affidavit of the Excise Commissioner that he had recommended the application on 11-05-2010. There was no specific direction in the judgment to the Government and, even before the direction was issued, the Excise Commissioner had already recommended the application. It cannot be said that he has acted in wilful disobeyance of the directions. Of course, the complaint mentioned is dated 01- COC No.46/2011 : 5 : 07-2010 after the recommendation was made as early as on 11-05-2010. I am not pronouncing finally on the matter since the said question have to be agitated by the petitioner in a writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner will be challenging the order passed by the Excise Commissioner by filing a writ petition. 11. Therefore, the question is only whether there is any wilful violation of the judgment passed by this Court. In the light of the explanation offered by respondents 1 and 2, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, the Contempt Case is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Excise Commissioner and the Government by filing appropriate writ petition. Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge