IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32689 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.KUNJU NAIR, THULASEE BHAVANAM, ANAYADI.P.O, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. 2. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, VALLAKANJIRATHU VILAYIL, PULLIKULAM, PARAKADAVU.P.O, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KUNNATHUR RANGE OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, BLARE HOUSE, KARICODE, KOLLAM. 5. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, BLARE HOUSE, KARICODE, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R4, R5 BY SRI.ELVIN PETER, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.32689 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are local residents of Anayadi in Kollam district. They say that the Beverages Corporation has a proposal to house an FL-1 shop in a building which would be within the prohibited distance in terms of the Abkari laws. There is no reason to assume that the Commissioner of Excise would not consider whether a proposed site is within the objectionable distance from any particular land mark. While the petitioners say that there are schools, temples etc., learned counsel for the Corporation states that no notification has been issued with the approval of the Government as of now and without a site being notified in terms of the description of its boundaries, with the concurrence of the Government, no FL-1 shop would be established. Therefore, the issue is only where the Commissioner of Excise could be within jurisdiction to consider the objection of the petitioners. Accordingly, without expressing anything on merits, WPC.32698/09 2 this writ petition is ordered directing that the Commissioner of Excise will consider Ext.P2 and Ext.P1 site plan and decide the matter with reference to all relevant details, including the report that would be sent up in terms of the statutory provisions by the competent authority. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.17/11.