IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 2793 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20537/2006 Dated 13/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- MRS.OMANA ASOKAN, MANAGING PARTNER, THE LANDMARK ( A UNIT OF HOTEL HILL TOP), NEAR JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 017. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN FOR R1 SRI.NIREESH MATHEW FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2793 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 20537 of 2006 are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The second appellant, Excise Commissioner, granted an FL-3 licence to the respondent by Ext.P3 order dated 30.3.2005. The respondent's husband was in default to the Government towards Abkari dues. So, the Government issued Ext.P5 communication dated 5.8.2006 to the Excise Commissioner, not to issue the permit till the disposal of the case before the Supreme Court or her husband is absolved of his liability. The case before the Supreme Court was one filed by the respondent's husband, challenging the forfeiture of security amount made by him in W.A.No. 2793 of 2007 2 connection with the grant of toddy shop licence for a period of three years and also the demand of future rental. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the writ petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, directing the Excise Commissioner to issue FL-3 licence, on condition that the respondent executes an indemnity bond to pay the amount due from her husband to the State, if ultimately the Supreme Court dismisses his case. Aggrieved by the above direction, the respondents in the writ petition preferred this writ appeal. 4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the the Civil Appeal filed by her husband before the Supreme Court has been allowed and he has been absolved from all the liabilities. In view of the same, she has preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Excise Commissioner, a copy of which is produced along with I.A.No. 270 of 2009 in this appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the objection taken by the appellants no longer survives in view of the judgment of the Supreme W.A.No. 2793 of 2007 3 Court. So, the Excise Commissioner may be directed to issue the licence at the earliest, considering Ext.P6. 5. We heard the learned Government Pleader on the above point. 6. If the respondent's husband is absolved of all the liabilities, as claimed by her, based on the judgment of the Apex Court, she is entitled to get the FL-33 licence issued, provided no other supervening disqualification has taken place in her case. Therefore, the second appellant, the Excise Commissioner, is directed to consider Ext.P6 and take a decision concerning issue of FL-3 licence to the respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The respondent shall produce the judgment of the Apex Court and other materials relied on by her. If there is any objection in issuing the licence, the second appellant shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the respondent before disposal of Ext.P6. It is clarified that even after the judgment, if there is any liability remaining for the respondent's husband, the licence need be issued only on clearing the W.A.No. 2793 of 2007 4 same. In other words, the licence need not be issued after receiving indemnity bond from the respondent. 7. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm