IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 628 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23258/2008 Dated 12/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): / RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, FOREIGN LIQUOR I SHOP, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORP RESPONDENT(S): / PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 --------------- 1. J.ISSAC, S/O.LATE JOHN, THYTHOPPIL HOUSE, THACHAMPARA.P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD CIVIL STATION. 3. SECRETARY, THACHAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 4. THACHAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK. *ADDL.R5 THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/10/2011 IN I.A.NO.757/2011) MR.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD), FOR R1 MR.GEORGE MECHERIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1511 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.628/2010 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1 : COPY OF FL-9 LICENCE ISSUED TO THE CORPORATION. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. Nos.628 & 1511 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality. 2. The question raised is whether municipal licence is required for carrying on business in retail sale of liquor by the appellant, which is a Government of Kerala Undertaking. The issue stands decided by the learned Single Judge in the case of Noushad v. Kayamkulam Municipality, reported in 2006(2) KLT 319. 3. After hearing both sides, we do not find any justification to deviate from the view taken by the learned Single Judge, and consequently, we approve the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Even though learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the case decided pertains to toddy shops and therefore the decision does not W.A.Nos.628 & 1511/2010 2 apply in the case of retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, we are unable to accept the contention because liquor in all forms are traded under licence issued by the Excise Authorities. There is no provision in the Municipalities Act to exempt Government Companies or liquor traders from obtaining licence for carrying on business. Learned counsel for the appellants further stated that local bodies like Panchayt are raising untenable objections for rejecting application for licence submitted by the appellants. We do not think the Municipalities or Panchayats are entitled arbitrarily to reject licence to Beverages Corporation, which is a Government of Kerala Undertaking. When the Government gives FL-1 licence for sale of liquor, necessarily the Municipality or the Panchayat has to grant it, and probably they can oppose grant of licence only to shops located close to objectionable sites like places for religious worship, schools and the like. We do not want to deal exhaustively with circumstances under which licence could be declined by the Municipality or the Panchayat to a W.A.Nos.628 & 1511/2010 3 particular shop. However, it is for the appellants to locate suitable places and apply for municipal or panchayat licence and if declined arbitrarily the appellants can challenge the same in Court. 4. Since in this case prosecution has been launched, it is for the appellants to make application for licence if such application is not so far filed and the Municipality should certainly consider the same and if allowed it should recall prosecution against the Government Company launched on technical grounds. These Writ Appeals are dismissed but with the above observations. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Sd/- (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg