IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29874 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KOTTUKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T 196, PUNNAKKULAM, KOTTUKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRY-IN-CHARGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 010. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, NEYYATTINAKRA, PIN-695 121. 4. MANAGER, WAREHOUSE, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION, ATTINGAL, PIN-695 101. 5. THE SHOP-IN-CHARGE, FL1 SHOP NO.1045, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION, PUNNAKKULAM, KOTTUKAL.P.O., PIN-691 519. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.MANI SRI. ELVIN PETER P.J, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29874/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 18.9.2010 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSBC/SEC/080/2009-10/431 DT. 25.9.2009 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT CORPORATION ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITOINER BANK. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSBC/SEC/080/2009-10/511 DT. 30.10.2009 TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.T4-2958/2010 DT. 16.9.2010 THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.45/2010-11/TVPM OF NEYYATTINKARA RANGE. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE RECEIPT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER O.T4-2958/2010 DT. 18.9.2010. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. A.K.BASHEER, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29874 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. The up stair portion of the building where the Bank is now functioning, was let out by the Bank to the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. on a monthly rental basis to conduct a retail outlet for sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. 2. It is beyond controversy that on the request made by the Bank, the Corporation had agreed to shift its business to a nearby building. In fact, the Corporation identified a building for this purpose. Ext.P4 order of shifting was passed thereafter on 16th September, 2010. It is on record that in the meanwhile, the Bank had refunded the advance amount received by it form the Corporation, as could be seen from Ext.P6 receipt issued by the Corporation. 3. But there was a dramatic turn around thereafter. On September 18, 2010, respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, issued Ext.P7 order revoking the earlier order of shifting and directing that the retail out let which is being conducted in the up stair portion of the Bank be continued in the same premises until WPC No.29874/2010 2 further orders. The said order is sought to be quashed in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 is totally vitiated and unsustainable for reasons more than one. He points out that the Corporation having already identified the new premises to shift its business, as indicated in Ext.P4 order, the Deputy Commissioner had no warrant or authority to revoke the said order without any justifiable reasons. He further submits that what has apparently motivated or persuaded the Deputy Commissioner is the undue influence exerted by the licensee of a nearby toddy shop. I do not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage. 5. A perusal of Ext.P7 order will show that the Deputy Commissioner had not heard the petitioner before the said order was issued. The reason stated for revocation, as could be seen from Ext.P7 is that “there is sustained protest from the Trade union members and public of the locality”. 6. The Deputy Commissioner has not referred to any other reason to revoke Ext.P4 order. In my view the reason for revocation as reflected in Ext.P7 is wholly untenable. Therefore Ext.P7 is quashed. 7. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that WPC No.29874/2010 3 the Corporation is prepared to shift the retail outlet to another premises if some reasonable time is granted. But according to him, two months' time may be required to find out an alternate building. However, it can be seen from Ext.P4 order that the Corporation had already identified a building for shifting its business. The Corporation does not have a case that the said building is not available now. Ext.P4 order was passed on 16th September, 2010 and Ext.P7 order of revocation is seen to have been passed two days thereafter viz, on 18th September, 2010. More importantly, there is nothing on record to indicate that the reason for revocation was due to non availability of an alternate building. In that view of the matter also, I am not satisfied that the Corporation can be granted two month's time. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the Corporation can be granted one month's time from today to vacate the premises to the petitioner-Bank. I do so. The Corporation shall find out a suitable building and shift its business within the time stipulated above. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.29874/2010 4