IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 14462 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAI RAJESH.C, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL RAJADHANI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. C.REEJA, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL RAJAPRASTHAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FOR TAXES DEPARTMENT. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., PERINTHALMANNA. R1 & R2 BY G.P. SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 14462 of 2010-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners are FL-3 licensees. They were indenting liquor from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, Palakkad, which is more than 65 kms. away from Pattambi. The petitioners are aggrieved by the restriction imposed by the Managing Director of the Corporation disallowing them from indenting beer from Perinthalmanna. Ext.P3(a) is the order said to have been passed by the Managing Director. The main prayer in the writ petition is to direct respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioners to procure liquor including beer from FL-9 KSBC Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District, permanently. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a statement as directed by this Court. They have disputed the claim raised by the petitioners in the writ petition. Detailed averments have been made in para 8 of the statement with regard to the circumstances leading to the issuance of Ext.P3(a). It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the corporation that the shortage of beer during the present season had compelled the corporation to issue such proceedings and the said fact cannot be disputed also. wpc 14462/2010 2 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the arrangements now made is in violation of the directions issued by the Excise Commissioner. It is also pointed out that the instances pointed out by the respondents cannot be justified also. Seeking for interference in the matter, the petitioners have already filed Ext.P4 representation before the State Government as well as the Excise Commissioner. It is prayed that Excise Commissioner may be directed to take a decision on Ext.P4. it is also pointed out that the onset of monsoon may change the situation and therefore, the Excise Commissioner may be directed to take a decision without any further delay. 4. Heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 5. There will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 within a period of ten days. The petitioners will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance, today itself. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/