IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 13817 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K. SOMAN, AGED 51, S/O.KESAVAN, AMMANKULATHIL HOUSE,OLIYAPURAM P.O., KUTHATTUKULAM,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.PRABHU VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE OFFICE,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. BINDU RAJAN, PALACKATHADATHIL HOUSE, PERUMBADAVAM,ELANJI,MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R.4 SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN FOR R.4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The issue in the writ petition relates to the conduct of Toddy shop in Group No.1 in Muvattupuzha Excise Range during the Abkari year 2007-2008. Having regard to the long lapse of time and the interim order issued, the subject matter has become infructuous. That apart there is no representation for either. Writ petition is dismissed. 24.2.2010. Sd/-ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE // true copy// P.S to Judge. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.A.No.9380/2007 & W.P.(C)NO.13817/2007-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of July, 2007 O RD E R I.A.No.9380/2007 This is a petition filed by the 4th respondent seeking clarification of the interim order dated 4.5.2007. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Govt. Pleader. 2. In the writ petition, this court had passed an order on 27.4.2007 directing the second respondent not to issue license to conduct the toddy shops in Group No.1 of Muvattupuzha Excise Range to the 4th respondent, if not already issued. When the matter came up for hearing on 4.5.2007, learned counsel for the 4th respondent had submitted that the sale has been confirmed on 1.4.2007. Therefore, the interim order dated 27.4.2007 was modified clarifying that the license, if any issued, will be provisional and subject to further orders. 3. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it has been averred that in spite of the orders issued by this court, so far the license has not been issued to the 4th respondent. The averment is that the Excise authorities are taking a stand that in spite of the order dated 4.5.2007, the position is the -2- same as was it pursuant to the order dated 27.4.2007. 4. This is an unfortunate situation. If the second respondent and other officers of the department actually wanted any further clarification after the receipt of orders passed by this court, they should have approached this court and should have appraised this court about the matter, rather than causing undue delay in issuing license. In spite of the remittance of the rental for the conduct of the shop, the 4th respondent has been unnecessarily put in real difficulties by the attitude of the official respondents. Therefore, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition to issue license to the 4th respondent for conduct of the toddy shops in question forthwith. The first respondent will file an affidavit showing the reasons why in spite of the order dated 4.5.2007, so far the 4th respondent was not issued the license. W.P.(C) NO.13817/2007 Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the issuance of a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation pending the disposal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent has no objection. Therefore, there will be a direction to -3- the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 after hearing all the parties, expeditiously pending the writ petition. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/