IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10047 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.SANTHA, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, KAVUMPADY ROAD, MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, KACHERYPADY, ERNAKULAM. 4. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 6. MOOTHEDATH CORPORATION, M.M.C.NO. XII/800, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUVATTUPUZHA, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER SRI. M.N. PARTHASARATHY. ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED – VIDE JUDGMENT. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN FOR ADDL.R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 10047 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 31st March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the holder of a licence to run a FL-3 Bar. The petitioner has been issued with Ext. P12 show cause notice directing the petitioner to show cause why the licence issued to the petitioner should not be cancelled as per Rule 26(b) of the Abkari Act. The petitioner challenges that notice on the ground that it is vague and also the allegations therein are not sustainable. 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that Ext. P12 is a show cause notice and the petitioner can very well file a reply. In answer to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the period of licence expires today and in view of the show cause notice, the 2nd respondent will not renew the licence and that is why even though Ext. P12 is a show cause notice, he has come before this Court challenging the same. 3. An impleading petition is filed by one Moothedath Corporation who is allegedly the owner of the building, on the ground that it is on their complaint that Ext. P12 show cause notice has been issued, after conducting an enquiry on the same. They would submit that lot of other irregularities are also there and proceedings for eviction of the petitioner is in progress. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. There are two allegations in Ext. P 12, which are: (i) Licensee of FL3 No. E74/EKLM Hotel Sayana, Movattupuzha has made alterations/modifications in the licensed premises without obtaining sanctioning from the Excise Commissioner in this regard. (ii) Licensee has made illegal transfer of exclusive privilege of the FL3 license to her son by executing a document.” As far as the first allegation is concerned, I am of opinion that the W.P.C. No. 10047/2008. -: 2 :- same is vague. Nobody could answer such an allegation without knowing exactly what is the alleged alterations/modifications stated to have been made by the petitioner. The petitioner categorically asserts that no alterations/modifications have been made by the petitioner and the Bar remains as it was in the plan approved by the 2nd respondent at the time of granting the licence. Regarding the second allegation, the petitioner contends that in Ext. P13, which is the alleged transfer deed, there is no transfer as alleged in Ext. P12. Ext. P13 only says that after obtaining permission from the departmental authorities, the petitioner's son may seek transfer of the licence in his favour. The petitioner would contend that that would not constitute an illegal transfer of the licence in favour of the petitioner's son. 6. I am of opinion that the petitioner can file a reply to Ext. P12 and contest the allegations against her. But, I am of opinion that on that ground, the licence cannot be refused to be renewed in so far as, as on today, there is no finding against the petitioner and it would be a travesty of justice if on such allegations which are yet to be proved a running Bar should be stopped. As far as the contention of the party who seeks themselves to be impleaded in this writ petition is concerned, I am of opinion that their remedy lies elsewhere. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall file a reply to Ext. P12 within two weeks. The 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass final orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, taking into account all his contentions and specifically dealing with those contentions by a reasoned and speaking order. As far as the renewal W.P.C. No. 10047/2008. -: 3 :- of licence is concerned, the same shall be renewed subject to final orders to be passed on Ext. P12, if, otherwise, the petitioner is entitled to such renewal. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.