IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24221 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- BABU.K.K. S/O. K.V. KUMARAN, KETTILAPILLY HOUSE, CHERAI. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.T.SAJI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHERAI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.ELVIN PETER,SC,BEVERAGES CORPN. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24221/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a resident of Pallippuram Grama Panchayat, within whose jurisdiction the 3rd respondent has opened a FL-I shop in building No.10/364. The residents of the locality moved the 2nd respondent, pointing out the inconveniences that are caused on account of the functioning of the shop and requesting for shifting it from the present premises. As further action was not taken, they moved this court and in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(c). No.26866/2007, this court directed that a decision be taken on the representation. Petitioner also pointed out that, the Panchayat also had passed Ext.P2 resolution unanimously requesting that the shop be shifted from the premises. WP(c).No.24221/2008 2 2. In pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P3 the second respondent has stated that the shop satisfies all requirements prescribed in the Abkari Act and the Rules and therefore nothing objectionable in the continuance of the shop in the present place. 3. I am afraid that the approach taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P3 is not the correct one. Petitioner is not complaining that the shop is functioning in violation of the Act or Rules. He complains of the inconvenience caused and it is on account of this, he seeks shifting of the shop in question. 4. True the counsel for the 3rd respondent has canvassed to sustain Ext.P3. Apart from his contention that the shop in question satisfies all statutory requirements he also challenged the bona fides of the petitioner who according to him has been set up by the FL-III licencees and also the toddy shop licencees. But from the affidavit filed by the petitioner, prima facie I am of the view that this WP(c).No.24221/2008 3 contention is incorrect. This is all the more for the reason that the Panchayat has also passed Ext.P2 resolution supporting their request. 5. I am of the view that the 2nd respondent has not examined the issue in the correct perspective and I hold that the 2nd respondent has misdirected himself in the issue. 6. Therefore I quash Ext.P3 and directing that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and others and take a fresh decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.24221/2008 4