IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2281 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23405/2007 Dated 18/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN WP(C): ------------------- P.N. SASIKUMAR, S/O. NANUKUTTAN NAIR, PUTHETTUMADOM, CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 006. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KANNUR. 4. U.K. NAMBIAR @ UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S/O.C GOVINDAN NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANNANORE COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORTS PVT. LTD., KATTAMPALLY, NARATH P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. CANNANORE COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORTS PVT. LIMITED, KATTAMPALLY, NARATH P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R4 & 5 SRI.M.K.SUMOD FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.2277/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.2281 & 2277 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. These writ appeals are filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.7.2007 disposing of W.P.(C) Nos.23038 & 23405/2007. W.A.No.2281/2007: This appeal is treated as the main case. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23405/2007. The respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P12 order of the Excise Commissioner giving permission to transfer an FL-3 licence standing in the name of the appellant in favour of the 4th respondent. The appellant was the Director of a Company. According to him, he obtained an FL-3 licence in his name. But, the 4th respondent has taken steps to get it W.A. Nos.2281 & 2227/2007 2 transferred in his favour using a forged requisition. According to the appellant, blank signed papers have been used to create documents showing his consent for transfer of the licence and also the communication to the Excise Commissioner requesting for transfer of the licence in favour of the 4th respondent. 3. But, 4th respondent would submit that the appellant got the licence in his capacity as the Director of a Company. In fact, the Company is a licensee. Now, the appellant has been removed from the directorship and at present the 4th respondent is managing it. So, in his capacity, he is entitled to get the FL-3 licence transferred in his favour. The allegations of forgery, giving forged letter before the Excise Commissioner, etc. are unfounded, it is submitted. 4. It is common case that two suits are pending between the appellant and the 4th respondent concerning the above dispute. According to the appellant, during the pendency of the suits and in the face of an order restraining transfer of the licence by the civil court, the Excise Commissioner issued Ext.P12 order. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is also W.A. Nos.2281 & 2227/2007 3 asserted that all the documents used for obtaining Ext.P12 are forged documents. The connected writ petition, that is, W.P.(C) No.23038/2007, was filed by the 4th respondent praying for a direction to the Excise officials to implement Ext.P12 mentioned above. Both the writ petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge and disposed of by a common judgment, which is under appeal in this case. The learned Single Judge directed to implement Ext.P12. It was also ordered that the 4th respondent shall file statement of accounts before the civil court from time to time. All the contentions of the parties before the civil court were left open. Feeling aggrieved by the above direction, this appeal is filed. 5. The factual dispute involved in the transfer is a matter, which can be decided only by a civil court. So, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the parties to pursue their remedies before the civil court. It is made clear that having regard to the facts of the case, the civil court will be competent to pass further appropriate orders, regarding accounting, management, etc., as found unnecessary, pending disposal of the suit. Nothing in the judgment of the W.A. Nos.2281 & 2227/2007 4 learned Single Judge or in this judgment will affect the powers of the civil court to pass appropriate orders including interim orders as are found necessary. It is made clear that the implementation of Ext.P12 order of the Excise Commissioner and the transfer of the licence will be subject to the final decision in the civil suits. In other words, if the transfer is found to have been effected, based on forged documents, the civil court can nullify the same. If the transfer is found to be regular by the civil court, then the implementation of Ext.P12 shall be treated as valid. With the above clarifications, the appeal is disposed of. W.A.No.2277/2007: It is ordered that the judgment in W.A.No.2281/2007 will be treated as the judgment in this case also. In other words, the directions issued therein will be treated as the directions in this appeal also. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps