IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22512 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POLSONS DISTILLERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PAUL PERINCHERY, CHALAKKUDY 680 316. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003 2. COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, PALARIVATTOM,COCHIN 682 025. 4. EXCISE INSPECTOR, POLSONS DISTILLERY, CHALAKKUDY 680 316. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 22512/2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF R1 DT. 17-12-1999. EXT.P2 PROCEEDINGS DT. 9-10-2001. EXT.P3 APPLICATION DT. 2-6-2007. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 21-6-2007. EXT.P5 RECOMMENDATION DT. 31-7-2007. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 18-12-2007 [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22512 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a partnership firm, which is running a distillery. They are aggrieved by Ext. P6 order of the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner's application for enhancing the storage capacity of extra neutral alcohol from the existing capacity of 6 lakhs B/L to 11 lakhs B/L has been rejected. The petitioner submits that there is no reason to reject the request of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the petitioner that similarly situated distilleries have been given sanction for increasing the storage capacity and therefore the denial of the same to the petitioner is discriminatory. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext. P6 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to grant sanction for enhancement of the 'at a time storage capacity' as requested by the petitioner by Ext. P3 to store-extra Neutral Alcohol which is a raw material in the manufacture f liquor.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, in which it is stated that the Government has taken an earlier decision not to give permission to increase the storage capacity of extra neutral alcohol for bringing down the consumption of alcohol in the State, but, at the same time, the respondents could not effectively contradict the specific averment of the petitioner that other similarly situated distilleries have been granted permission to enhance the storage capacity. That being so, Ext. P6 order denying the same benefit to the petitioner is discriminatory. Accordingly, Ext. P6 order is quashed and the respondents are W.P.C. No. 22512/2008 -: 2 :- directed to re-consider Ext. P3 application submitted by the petitioner taking into consideration Exts.P4 and P5 recommendations submitted by the Excise Inspector and the Deputy Excise Commissioner. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/