IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22217 of 2009(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DARLEY GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS, MATTATHIL KULATHINANIL HOUSE, KURUVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM,PIN-680 036. JOINT LICENSEE AND MANAGING PARTNER JAIRAJ LODGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. MR.S.SREEKUMAR, MR.P.MARTIN JOSE, MR.P.PRIJITH, MR.S.VAIDYANATHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. M.D.RAJAN, S/O.LATE M.N.DAMODARAN, JAYA RAJ BHAVAN, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. V.K.MALLIKA, W/O.LATE M.N. DAMODARAN, JAYARAJ BHAVAN, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.22217 of 2009-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Notice to respondents 4 and 5 dispensed with preserving their right to seek re-hearing of this writ petition, if aggrieved by the directions being issued hereunder. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 to 3. 2.The petitioner challenges the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise on the question of renewal of licence to a firm. This is a matter that can be challenged before the Commissioner of Excise, who is the highest statutory competent authority in the establishment. Therefore, on the petitioner making an application before the Commissioner of Excise challenging the impugned decision, the WP(C)22217/09 -: 2 :- Commissioner will consider the issuance of licence, at least, provisionally on payments to be made to the Government in terms of the orders of the Commissioner and the Commissioner will decide on the question of the correctness of the impugned decision of the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the necessary parties. Any interim decision of the Commissioner could be issued within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the request of the petitioner to set aside the impugned decision of the Deputy Commissioner. A final decision shall follow within an outer limit of three months. The writ petition is ordered accordingly, leaving open all other issues. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/070809