IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.A.No.982 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.11541/2008 DATED 10/04/2008 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:- -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. C.N.CHANDRA BANU, S/O.C.K.NARAYANAN, CHERUNKAL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O. 2. K.P.SHAJI, S/O.PODIYAN, PUTHENPURACKAL, MUKKADA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. RAJENDRAN E.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN, ELAVUNKAMURIYIL HOUSE, CHERUVALLIKKARA, CHERUVALLI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV.SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1004 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No1004 of 2008 & W.A.No.982 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The State being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.10734 of 2008 and 11541 of 2008 dated 10th April, 2008 is before us in these writ appeals. 2. There was dispute between Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran, wife of Bhaskaran who is one of the legal representatives of late Madhavan, who was the holder of a licence under the provisions of the Abkari Act along with respondents 2 to 4 for certain toddy shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise Range. 3. After the death of Madhavan, Ext.P1 (joint application) came to be filed by Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and other legal heirs before the Commissioner of Excise for endorsing the name of Vilasini Bhaskaran in the licence. That application came to be rejected by the Commissioner of Excise on 25.3.2008, even without notice to Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and others. Aggrieved by the said action, Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and others were before this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. 4. The learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ petitions had granted an interim order and thereby the licence was allowed to be continued for vending the toddy shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise Range. 5. It appears that there was some sort of misunderstanding between Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and the joint licensees who got the licence to vend the toddy shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise Range for the excise year W.A.Nos.1004 & 982 of 2008 2 2008-09. During the pendency of the writ petition there was an amicable settlement between Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and other licensees. Since the dispute was sorted out by Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and other joint licensees, the learned Single Judge has thought it fit to direct the State to endorse the name of Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and continue the licence that was granted for toddy shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise Range in the name of Vilasini Bhaskaran and others. Aggrieved by the consent order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred these writ appeals. 6. Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the State Government would submit that there is technical breach in complying with sub-rule (18) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 ('the Rules' for short) by the licensees and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned orders. 7. Sri.C.C.Thomas, learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent in W.A.No.1004 of 2008 and Sri.M.Abdul Lathiff, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in W.A.No.982 of 2008 would submit that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is in no way affect the interests of the State. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is a technical breach of sub-rule (18) of Rule 5 of the Rules in not informing the Excise Commissioner within the time prescribed under the said sub-rule, since it would not affect the interests of the State, the State ought not to have filed any writ appeal before this Court. 8. It is not the case of the Revenue that by the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge, it would affect the interests of the Revenue in any manner whatsoever. At the most, if there is any technical W.A.Nos.1004 & 982 of 2008 3 breach, that technical breach is condoned by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Since the State is not affected by the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that we need not have to entertain these writ appeals and then take exception to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the above, while rejecting the writ appeals filed by the State Government, we only say that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge need not be treated as precedent in any other case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE vns/