IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29156 of 2009(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THOMAS VARGHESE, S/O.N.T. VARGHESE, KAMUKUM PALLIL, MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT (EXCISE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA STATE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KERALA STATE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. THE KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONNI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 8. SRI.SIVAPRASAD, S/O.NEELAKANDASASTHRI, KONAZHATHU THEKKETHIL, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. (LICENCEE T.S.NO.4 GROUP NO.1 OF KONNI EXCISE RANGE, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT). R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R7 BY ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW, MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, MR.B.PREMNATH. R8 BY ADV. MR.SUNIL JACOB JOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29156/2009-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LICENCE DATED 07/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 01/04/2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.A4-5243/2009 DATED 03/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.669/2009 OF KONNI POLICE STATION. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.5378/2009 DATED 08/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.29156 of 2009-L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Showing the ownership certificate of a building owned by the petitioner, the 8th respondent obtained licence for a toddy shop in that building. The petitioner complained about it to the Excise authorities and the Circle Inspector of Excise issued Ext.P4 calling upon the petitioner to give his statement. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's statement was recorded following Ext.P4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, stating that the application for ownership certificate was made to the Panchayat forging his signature, made a complaint to the Panchayat. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit essentially not disputing either the veracity of the application or thecontention of the petitioner. A perusal of WPC29156/09 -: 2 :- Ext.P3 would show that the Panchayat merely received the application and the fee and issued the certificate without reference to the records. It is submitted in the counter affidavit of the Panchayat that the photo copy of the title deed was also produced. Whatever that be, the only certificate that the Panchayat ultimately issued is that the petitioner is the owner of the building. The claim of the 8th respondent to run the toddy shop in that building does not necessarily depend upon the format of the ownership of the building. It depends upon the question whether the petitioner has permitted the 8th respondent to occupy the building for the purpose of running the toddy shop. This is a matter on which the Excise authorities have to decide. Therefore, all that is required is that the proceedings in relation to which Ext.P4 has been issued, has been taken to its logical end. This should happen at the earliest. Accordingly, it is ordered that proceedings in relation to which Ext.P4 has been issued, would be concluded WPC29156/09 -: 3 :- within 45 days. Needless to say that necessary parties will be heard. The writ petition ordered accordingly leaving open all contentions on merits. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1612