IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6398 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SIVADAS, S/O. KASU SANKARAN KANDATH HOUSE, K.N.PUDUR, PUTHUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD ) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ,TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6398 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he was granted Ext.P1 licence in respect of T.S.No.89, Group No.XVII of Chittoor Excise Range, and the licence has not been renewed, and the prayer made in the writ petition is that the respondents should be directed to pass orders renewing the licence. According to the petitioner, only if renewal of the licence is granted, can the petitioner participate in the auction of toddy shops in Chittoor Excise Range for the year 2010-11. 2. When the case was came up for orders on 01/03/2010, it was adjourned with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions. Accordingly, she has obtained instructions and it is submitted that in respect of the building offered by the petitioner, though the landlord initially had given consent, the same was withdrawn later. It is also stated that within 400 metres of the building, there is a school and that several complaints received. According to the learned Government Pleader, it was for these reasons that the licence was not renewed. WP(C) No.6398/2010 -2- 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far he has not been informed of the reasons for non-renewal of the licence. 4. It is true that if the building is objectionable for some reason, it is open to the respondents to decline renewal of the licence. But however a licensee is entitled to know the reasons for such non-renewal, as otherwise, he will not be able to pursue his remedies. In this case, although in the light of the facts as submitted by the learned Government Pleader this Court will not be justified in directing the respondents to renew the licence as sought for by the petitioner, still the respondents shall inform the petitioner the reasons for non-renewal of the licence. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent, who shall thereupon communicate to the petitioner reasons for non-renewal of the licence in respect of T.S.No.89, Group No.XVII of Chittoor Excise Range. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg