IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26006 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- E.K.ARAVINDAN, EREZHATH VEEDU, CHERAI, PO, ERNAKULAM-638 514. BY ADV.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA AND REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 4. KERALA STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION, RERESENTED .BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE,CHERAI PO, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ELVIN PETER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.26006 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. Petitioner who claims to be a permanent resident of Ward No.X in Pallipuram Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P5 order passed by the Commissioner of Excise. By the impugned order the Commissioner has overruled all the objections raised by the petitioner against the FL1 retail outlet being run by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. The Commissioner held that there was no merit or substance in any of the allegations made by the petitioner. 2. The prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the Commissioner. There is a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.2 to shift the WP.(C) No.26006 of 2009. - 2 - said foreign liquor retail outlet from the building in question. 3. It is contended by the learned senior counsel who appears for the petitioner that the local residents are put to untold hardship and inconvenience because of the nuisance caused by the big crowd that throng the narrow road where the retail outlet is functioning. Our attention has been invited to Ext.P7 photograph which, according to the learned senior counsel, is telltale of the situation that prevails on the road in front of the shop. He further points out that the local Panchayat has also got reservations about the running of the outlet in the premises in question. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that the Panchayat has not so far issued any licence to the Corporation to run the outlet. It is the further contention of the petitioner that a resident of the Panchayat has issued a consent letter to whomsoever it may concern indicating that she is willing to let out her building to the Corporation if it is prepared to shift the shop to that alternate premises. WP.(C) No.26006 of 2009. - 3 - 4. We have carefully perused the materials available on record, especially Ext.P5 order passed by the Commissioner. It may be noted that the Commissioner has passed the impugned order in the light of the direction issued by this Court when the petitioner along with another had filed W.P.(C) No.26866 of 2007 making the very same allegations. This Court after hearing the parties had directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision after hearing all the parties concerned. 5. Ext.P5 order reveals that the Commissioner has adverted to the entire history of the litigation. He had heard the petitioner and the Panchayat also. The Commissioner noticed that two Bar attached hotels and a toddy shop were functioning on the same road in close proximity. Indian Made Liquor Liquor is being sold in sealed bottles. Customers are not allowed to open the bottles and consume liquor in public anywhere near the shop premises. Drinking at public places is prohibited under the WP.(C) No.26006 of 2009. - 4 - Abkari Act also. It was only after hearing all the parties concerned and considering the entire aspects of the matter, that the Commissioner had passed the impugned order. 6. It may be true that the road in question is narrow; and for that matter, all the roads in this particular area are narrow. Similarly, if any obstruction is caused to the pedestrians or for vehicular traffic in front of the shop on any particular day, necessarily the help of the police authorities will be available. The Panchayat can also intervene if the situation demands. 7. Having carefully perused the impugned order and other materials available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. 8. Learned senior counsel submits that the Panchayat has been inactive. We cannot accept this contention on the face of it. If the petitioner feels that the Panchayat is inactive, he may alert the Panchayat and request it to take appropriate action by preferring a representation in this regard. If such a representation WP.(C) No.26006 of 2009. - 5 - is received, the Panchayat shall take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the same. If the Panchayat proposes to take any action in the matter, on the basis of the representation if any that may be received, it shall be ensured that the petitioner and the Corporation/licensee are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. With the above observation/direction the writ petition is closed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns