IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 236 of 2010(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREENARAYANAPURAM MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE COMMITTEE, NADAKKAVU, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THILAKARAJ, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF GOPINATHAN KANNIMEL, KIZHAKKATHIL, MAIBHAGOM, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. KRISHNA KUMAR, PRASANTHI SHOPPING COMPLEX, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOLLAM. 6. SHARADA, THETTIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, POLAYATHODU P.O., KOLLAM. 7. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. BY SR.GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).236/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 are proceeding to open a new retail outlet in a building owned by the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, the building is situated within the prohibited distance from the Sree Narayanapuram Maha Vishnu Temple and that for other reasons also, the proposed outlet cannot be allowed to be opened. It is seen that the petitioner has taken up the matter by filing Ext.P1 complaint before the 3rd respondent with copy to the 2nd respondent. 2. In view of the fact that the 2nd respondent is the appropriate authority to consider and deal with the complaint, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1, conduct necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the matter which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, provided at least a copy of Ext.P1 complaint has been received by the 2nd respondent. W.P.(C).236/10 2 3. Petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC Judge mrcs