IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4398 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUVATTUPUZHA CLUB, REG.NO.ER-28/89, DOOR NO.MMC XI/2, 2A, 3, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.N.V.GEORGE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.N.V.VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4398 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a club, which is stated to be eligible to be issued FL-4A licence. On the ground that a case was registered against some of the former officials of the club, the licence application was rejected by Ext.P6. Against that order, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision before the 1 st respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P8. It is challenging Exts.P6 & P8, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Ext.P8 order reads as under:- “I am to invite your attention to the reference cited, and to inform you that your request to grant FL-4A licence to Muvattupuzha Club, by setting aside order No.C6-17968/09 dated 18/09/2009 of the Excise Commissioner is rejected by Government, as the order appealed against is found legal and correct.” 3. Admittedly, Ext.P7 revision has been filed invoking the revisional power of the 1st respondent as available under Rule 40 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. A reading of Ext.P8 evidences that none of the contentions have been dealt with by the Government and WP(C) No.4398/2010 -2- order does not contain any reason for rejecting the revision. Therefore, this order is laconic and is bad for non-application of mind. For these reasons, I set aside Ext.P8 and direct the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P7 revision with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg