IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10895 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LAL KUMAR GOPI, PATTATHUVILA, 224, BHAVANA NAGAR, KADAPPAKADA P.O., VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR,ADVOCATE MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER,ADVOCATE MR.SAJU JOHN,ADVOCATE MR.V.VARGHESE,ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ARUNDHATHI, W/O.SIVADASAN, KUNNISSERIL VEEDU, KANNIMELCHERY, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. ANITHA SHANAVAS, D/O.ARUNDHATHI, ROHINI, VETTILATHAZHAMCHERY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, DECENT MUKKU P.O., KOLLAM. 3. MEENA ANILKUMAR, D/O.ARUNDHATHI, GOKULAM, PUTHALATHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 4. YAMUNA SHAJI (JAMUNA) D/O.ARUNDHATHI, KUNNISSERIL VEEDU, KANNIMELCHERY, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 5. LISSY RAJEEV, D/O.ARUNDHATHI, THENGILAZHIKOM VEEDU, KANJAVELI P.O., KOLLAM. W.P.(C).No.10895/2009 2 6. SHANAVAS, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, ROHINI, VETTILATHAZHAMCHERY THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, DECENT MUKKU P.O., KOLLAM. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.10895 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the son and sole legal heir of late Sri.Gopi, who had an FL-3 licence. Respondents 1 to 6 claiming to be successors-in-interest, on the basis of a document executed by late Gopi, have laid a claim on the licence and they are seeking renewal of the licence also in their name. The petitioner seeks to prevent the same. 2. I am of opinion that in so far as there is a document executed by Sri. Gopi before his death, unless that document is set aside, the petitioner cannot validly prevent respondents 1 to 6 from prosecuting their claim as legal heirs of late Gopi. That can only be done in a suit. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a suit for that purpose and also obtained some interim orders. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner contends that since another writ petition also by respondents 1 to 6 in respect of the renewal of the licence is pending, this writ petition also may be heard along with that writ W.P.(C)No.10895/09 2 petition. I am not inclined to do that also, since the petitioner himself has already got impleaded in that writ petition and therefore, it is open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions in that writ petition. For that purpose, this writ petition need not be admitted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the suit stated to have been filed by him and to prosecute his contentions in the writ petition stated to have been filed by respondents 1 to 6. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C)No.10895/09 3