IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.A.No. 766 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.3603/2008 IN WPC.32337/2006 DATED 13/03/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, 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 MR.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.MAYFLOWER HOTELS (P) LTD., REGD. OFFICE 41/1718-A. PARAMARA ROAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR CUM ACTING SECRETARY, SRI.V.GOUTHAMAN. 2. KURUVILA AUGUSTINE, S/O.AUGUSTINE (LATE) KACHIRAMATTOM HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , KERALA STATE. 3. JOSEPH.V.CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO (LATE) VATTANIRAPPEL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV.MR.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) & ADV.MR.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.766 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The State being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3603 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.32337 of 2006 dated 13th March of 2008, is before us in this appeal. 2. In I.A.No.3603 of 2008 the request of the petitioners was to direct the respondents in the application to renew FL-3 licence No.13/2007-08 in the name of the first petitioner for the year 2008-09 in the present premises, M/s.Alapatt Residency, Durai Swamy Iyer Road. 3. The learned Single Judge while considering that application has passed the interim order by referring to the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.880 of 2007. The order reads as under: “In view of the proceedings in W.A.No.880/07 and the interim order therein (Ext.P22), this I.A. is allowed as prayed for.” 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order, the State is before us in this writ appeal. 5. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue would submit that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in several writ petitions, the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted the prayer sought for by the petitioners in I.A.No.3603 of 2008. 6. Sri.C.C.Thomas, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, on instructions would submit that the respondent is W.A.No.766 of 2008 2 continuing its business in the present place from last five to six years. He also submits that the contesting respondent may be granted another year's time to shift from the present premises to their old premises. The contesting respondent has also filed an affidavit in that regard. The affidavit filed by the first respondent reads as under: “I, V.Gouthaman, aged 58 years, S/o.V.Velayudhan, Director-cum-Acting Secretary, M/s.Mayflower Hotels (P) Ltd., Regd. Office 41/1718-A, Paramara Road, Cochin-18 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I am the Director-cum-Acting Secretary of the 1st respondent company in the above writ appeal and the 1st respondent company is represented by me in the above writ appeal. I am well conversant with the facts of the case. 2. I hereby undertake that my FL-3 licence now being conducted at M/s.Alapatt Residency, Durai-Swamy Iyer Road, Cochin-35, will be shifted back from 1.4.2009 onwards to the original place. I also undertake that I shall not pursue the WP(C) No.32337/2006 now pending before this Hon'ble Court, further. All what is stated above are true and correct. Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008.” 7. Keeping in view that the appellants had renewed the licence of the contesting respondent for several years and also keeping in view that the appellants in the case of several others, who are similarly placed like the contesting respondent, have renewed the licence, and in view of the undertaking given by the first respondent, in our opinion, at this stage it may not be necessary for us to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.766 of 2008 3 8. Placing on record the affidavit of undertaking filed by the first respondent, this writ appeal is disposed of. The contesting respondent shall not seek for extension of time to continue in the same premises for the next excise year. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns/DK