IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 15104 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RATNAKUMARI, W/O.DEVADASAN,AGED 57 YEARS 'THATHWAMASI', MANGATTIRI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, TIRUR EXCISE RANGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE FOR R5 BY GP V MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 15104/2009) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS DTD. 12.3.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAKKAD, DTD. 26.3.2008. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 26.3.2008. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER DTD. 28.3.2008. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 2.4.2008. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 2.4.2008. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2008 OF THIS COURT IN WPC 37235 OF 2008. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 24.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY R1. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY R3. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY R2. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12.3.2009 IN WPC 7753 OF 2009 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF R3 DTD 26.3.2009 AS ORDER NO.M5-1415/2008. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE THALAPOLI FESTIVAL OF THE MANGATTIRI BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING MANGATTIRI KOTTA BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, THE TEMPLE SITUATED OUTSIDE THE PROHIBITED DISTANCE. EXT.R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TEMPLE STATED AS MANGATTIRI KAVU WHICH IS WITHIN THE PROHIBITED DISTANCE. //true copy// PA TO JUDGE lgk THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 15104 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner objected to the housing of a particular toddy shop. The licence for that toddy shop was being renewed. Judgments were issued by this court, requiring the statutory authority to consider the objections of the petitioner. Ext.P13, the impugned order is issued on 26.3.2009, stating that in compliance with the directions of this court, the petitioner was heard on 24.3.2009 and “ since there is no merit find out in her averments, it is decided to set aside the arguments of the petitioner and to revalidate the licence of Toddy Shop No.12/08- 09 Thalakkad of Tirur Range for a further period of three months with effect from 01.04.09 as per the Government order read 4th above”. 2. The gist of the objections of the petitioner, a retired school teacher, is that the shop in question is situated within an objectionable distance from a place of worship and a lower primary school. It is also pointed out that revenue authorities Wpc 15104/2009 2 including RDO and District Collector had advised shifting of the shop. 3. Whatever be the binding nature of the advise given by the revenue authorities, Deputy Commissioner of Excise could not have passed the order of shifting by overruling the objections of the petitioner in the manner he has done as quoted above. No fact is referred to. No satisfaction of mind is reflected by the impugned order. The objections of the petitioner are not addressed. For these reasons, the impugned decision has to go. 4. Following the modified interim order, the licencee is running the shop. It is ordered that his such activity will be provisional and subject to the decision that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise may take on hearing the petitioner afresh. The impugned Ext.P13, to the extent it overrules the objections of the petitioner, is set aside and the matter is ordered to be reconsidered in the light of all relevant materials. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The statutory authority will ensure that this proceeding is not dragged on. To ensure that, it is further ordered that any licence granted to the additional 5th respondent Wpc 15104/2009 3 shall not be in force beyond a period of two months from today, unless the Deputy Commissioner decides on the issue and such decision is in favour of the licencee. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/14/9