IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.A.No. 2958 of 2007 --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 31352 OF 2006 DATED 28.03.2007) APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, KADANTHARA, MOOTHEDATHKAVU, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. AMBILY, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. MOHANDAS, CHATHANKARI, MOOTHEDATHKAVU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. VISWAMBARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, VISWABHAVANAM, MOOTHEDATHKAVU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAJIV KOYICKAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.A.No. 2958 of 2007 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.G. RAJU, S/O. GOPALAN, KARUVELIL HOUSE, NEDUVELIL VILLAGE, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. K. MEERA. R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... W.A. No. 2958 OF 2007 ................................................................................... Dated this the 7th April, 2008 J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, C.J.: This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(C) No. 31352 of 2006 dated 28th March, 2007. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing, though the matter is posted for admission. 3. The writ petitioners are residents of Moothedathkavu village, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam district. The third petitioner is the convenor of the action council 'Anathikritha shapvirudha Samithi' . The members of the said Samithi are agitating for the last several years for shifting the Toddy Shop bearing No. 38 from the present premises. They have also filed several representations before the respondent authorities. Since the excise authorities and the District Collector did not heed to the request made in the representation, the Writ Petitioners were before this Court for a direction to the second respondent,viz., the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam to take appropriate steps to shift the location of the Toddy Shop No.38, which is situated in Moothedathkavu Village and secondly for a direction to the Excise Commissioner to withdraw the order, if any, allowing the 4th respondent to conduct the Toddy Shop bearing No.38. W.A. No. 2958 OF 2007 2 4. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition, by its order dated 28th March 2007, has directed the authorities that the allotment of licence to Toddy Shop in question shall be done only after ensuring that there is no violation of the distance rule. In the words of the learned single Judge: “Heard. 2. It is directed that the allotment of licence to Toddy Shop in question shall be done only after ensuring that there is no violation of the distance rule. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.” 5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge are before us in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the first prayer in the Writ Petition was to direct the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam to take necessary action to shift the location of the toddy shop bearing No.38, from its present premises at Moothedathkavu Village and secondly for a direction to the respondents to withdraw the order, if any, allowing the fourth respondent to conduct the Toddy Shop and while considering the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the respondents to consider the case of the contesting respondent for grant of licence to toddy shop keeping in view the distance rule. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents sought to justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. In our opinion, the prayers sought in the writ petition and the relief granted by the learned Single Judge are entirely different. In fact, the appellants are agitating from last few years for shifting of the toddy shops, W.A. No. 2958 OF 2007 3 since it is disturbing the peace in the village. Several orders are passed by the authorities and by this court also. In our view, what should have been noticed by the learned Judge was, whether there is any justification in the request made by the petitioners and whether the authorities have reacted one way or the other to the request made by the petitioners in their several representations. This is not done in the present case by the learned Judge. Therefore, we cannot sustain the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the writ petition and request the learned Single Judge to consider the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk/DK