IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32804 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- N.NIRMALAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, KOCHUKALATHIL HOUSE, VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING). 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATES BEVERAGES CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, KSBC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32804/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO THE 1ST RESPONDNT ON 25/11/2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/2/2007 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED NIL GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13/3/2007 ISSUED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/3/2007 SUBMITTED TO THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 32804 OF 2007 E ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought is essentially for the implementation of Ext.P5. It is stated that premises belonging to the petitioner was taken on rent by the 1st respondent and that sanction was accorded by Ext.P5 for shifting their FL-I shop to the petitioner's premises. Petitioner submits that since then there has not been any progress in the matter and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. On the other hand, the stand of the 1st respondent is that following Ext.P5 they had sought the sanction of the excise authorities and that in view of the delay in getting orders, they could not take further action on Ext.P5. 3. Today, the counsel for the petitioner has produced Order No.K5-1236/07/L.Dis dated 2.1.08 passed by the Assistant WPC 32804/07 :2 : Excise Commissioner according sanction for shifting the shop to the site mentioned in Ext.P5. It is also ordered that necessary entries are made in the licence and the licence register as well. 4. If following Ext.P5 and the recommendation made on that basis, sanction has already been accorded as stated above, there should not be any reason to delay further action on Ext.P5. Therefore, I direct that necessary further action following Ext.P5 and the order dated 2/1/08 referred to above shall be taken by the respondents. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp