IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7604 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.T.JOSEPH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.INDO SCOTTISH BOARD (PVT)LTD, DISTILLERY, KARUVALIPADI, COCHIN-682005 BY ADV. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY MR.K.A.BALAN MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO MR.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN:695001 2. EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE NANDAVANAM,VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695033 3. JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN-682025 4. EXCISE INSPECTOR(DISTILLERY OFFICER) M/S.INDO SCOTTISH BRAND(PVT)LTD DISTILLERY KARUVELIPADI, COCHIN-682005 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7604 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: LETTER NO.ISBDI/2010 DTD. 3.12.2010 OF R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: REPRESENTATION NO.ISBD/EX/04/2010-11 DTD. 14.12.2010 BY THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE R2. EXT.P3: LETTER NO.XC3-27233/10 DTD. 31.1.2011 OF R2 FORWARDED TO R1. EXT.P4: LETTER NO.ISDDI/2010-11 DTD. 28.12.2010 OF R4 FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: LETTER NO.CZI-111/2010 DTD. 21.12.2010 OF R3. EXT.P6: LETTER NO.ISDDI/2010-11 DTD. 9.2.2011 WRITTEN BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: LETTER NO.ISBD 1/2010-11 DTD. 19.2.2011 WRITTEN BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7(a): LETTER NO.ISBD/EX/IN/07/2010-11 DTD. 14.2.2011 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: LETTER NO.ISBDI-2010-11 DTD. 18.11.2010 WRITTEN BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: LETTER NO.ISBDI/010-11 DTD. 15.12.2010 WRITTEN BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: LETTER NO.ISBDI/2010-11 DTD. 18.1.2011 WRITTEN BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: LETTER NO.ISBDI/2010-11 DTD. 21.1.2011 WRITTEN BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.P.NOS.2168/2000 & 30994/1999 OF THIS COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.7604 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) To call for the records leading to Exts.P1, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10 & P11 and quash them by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to renew the licenses in FORM I, FORM II and FORM III within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to issue chalans for the remittance of licence fee to renew the licenses in FORMS -I, II & III for the year 2011-12 and also the cost of establishment based on the actual strength of Excise Staff attached to the petitioner's distillery after having adjusted the excess amount already collected from the petitioner within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. Petitioner is the holder of licence in FORM I, II & III under the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968, to manufacture spirit in the distillery for compounding and blending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and imported foreign liquor for the ::2:: W.P.(C).No.7604 Of 2011 purpose of sale. The licence fee is Rs.2 Lakhs each with effect from 1.4.2007. The petitioner submits that he has been running the business for the last 26 years and the distillery has been functioning under the direct control and supervision of Excise Department in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968. 3. According to the petitioner, he is liable to remit the cost of establishment of Excise Staff attached to the distillery based on actual strength as per Rule 4 under Part II of the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968. The petitioner pointed out that this Court had occasion to consider the issue in O.P.Nos.30994/2009 and 2168/2000 and other cases. This Court held that the cost of establishment is to be realised for the actual strength of Excise Staff working in the unit and not on the sanctioned strength. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the legal position declared by this Court, the respondents are demanding and collecting illegally the cost of establishment based on the sanctioned strength. It is pointed out that the Excise Commissioner has forwarded Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent to issue orders ::3:: W.P.(C).No.7604 Of 2011 based on the decision of this Court in O.P.Nos.30994/2009 and 2168/2000. 4. The learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court the communication No.2837/G3/2011/TD, dated 29.6.2011 issued by the Secretary to Government, addressed to the Excise Commissioner, informing that the cost of establishment is to be realised only on the actual strength of Excise Staff deployed and not for the sanctioned strength. In these circumstances, a fresh assessment shall be made by the Excise Commissioner in respect of the amount payable by the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid stand taken by the Government. 5. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-