IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12372 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M.ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.LATE N.K.MOHAMMED, "BISMILLAH MANZIL", KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 017. 2. DR.C.H.NAZEEM, W/O.MOHAMMED NAVAS, "BISMILLAH MANZIL", KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 017. 3. C.H,SHAMEEM, S/O.M.ABDUL HAMEED, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF "BISMILLAH MANZIL", KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KOCHI-682 017, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER- M.ABDUL HAMEED. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. 2. MRS.M.P.JAYASREE, W/O.K.P.DAMODARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT "SABARI", XXXV/1872, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTAM, KOCHI-682 025, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.MAYFAIR HOTEL, N.H.BYE-PASS ROAD, VENNALA P.O., PALARIVATTAM, COCHIN-682 028, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL. B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12372 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The complaint of the petitioners is that after Ext.P4 objection was submitted, they were heard, but no orders have been issued on Ext.P4 objections, though the 2nd respondent has been issued renewal of FL 3 licence. 2. Learned senior Government Pleader has placed before me Order No.E-5-2194/07/K.Dis. Dated 3.4.2008, which shows that the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam has overruled the objections of the writ petitioners and obviously the licence was issued following that order. Though it is further submitted that a copy of that order has been served on the petitioners, that is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned senior Government Pleader will ensure that a copy of the said order has been served on the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. W.P.(C)No.12372 OF 2008 2 Barring the above, I do not deem it necessary to issue any further order. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners, if any, to challenge the afore said order in accordance with law. THOTTATHIL. B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Acd