Allowed

M/S.Kallada Holiday Inn v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC22 Nov 2010WP(C)/29365/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, a hotel partnership firm, challenged the Excise Commissioner's rejection of their FL 3 licence application. The Commissioner denied the licence because the managing partner's husband was convicted of possessing forged labels. The Court set aside this order upon finding that the husband was subsequently acquitted in the Sessions Court and the finding of conviction was incorrect.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; Ext.P9 order was quashed; the Excise Commissioner was directed to reconsider the application and take a decision within one month.

M/S.Kallada Holiday Inn Vs State of Kerala and Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29365 of 2010(U) -------------------------PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶4

M/S.KALLADA HOLIDAY INN ALOOR PO, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SMT. K.T.SINDHU.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶7

STATE OF KERALA, REP BY SECRETARY TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE JOINT EXCISE COMMSSIONER CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THRISSUR

¶11

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH, FOR R1-5

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P(C)No.29365/2010

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1. PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAR CLASSIFICATION ORDER DATED 29.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE INDIA TOURISM CHENNAI

¶18

EXT.P2. PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.4.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P3. PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.4.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P4. PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.7.2010 SENT BY THE JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P5. PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.8.2010 IN W.P(C)NO.24171/2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶22

EXT.P6. PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.8.2010 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P7. PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.9.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P8. PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.7.2010 IN CRL.A.NO.155/2008 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR

¶25

EXT.P9. PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC6-11182/10 DATED 16.9.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P10. PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC6-17045/05 DATED 3.6.2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

/ TRUE COPY /

¶28

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶29

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶30

W.P(C).No.29365 of 2010

¶31

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2010

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner. The Managing Partner of the petitioner firm submitted Ext.P2 application to the Excise Commissioner for the grant of an FL 3 licence. Prior to that, the petitioner had obtained star classification for their hotel. The said application was rejected by Ext.P9 order dated 16.9.2010 on the short ground that the husband of the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm was convicted in a criminal case for possessing forged labels of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and that it would not be desirable to issue an FL3 licence to a firm of which the convict's wife is the Managing Partner. Ext.P9 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that though Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar, husband of the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm, was convicted by the trial court, on appeal, the judgment of conviction was set aside and Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar was found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner contends that

¶34

W.P(C).No.29365 of 2010

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

the Excise Commissioner proceeded on a misconception of facts when he rejected the application for FL3 licence on the ground stated in Ext.P9 and that the said decision cannot therefore be sustained. It is also stated that Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar himself is running a Bar Hotel as can be seen from Ext.P10 and that Ext.P10 order issued by the Excise Commissioner himself will prove the said fact.

¶37

I heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Ramesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. Ext.P10 order dated 3.6.2005 issued by the Excise Commissioner discloses that Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar is the Managing Partner of Sangeetha Hotels, Ollur, that the said firm is running a Bar Hotel and that the Excise Commissioner had accorded sanction to reconstitute the firm upon the retirement of a partner and induction of a new partner. Ext.P8 judgment of the Court of Session, Thrissur, discloses that Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar, the husband of the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm was acquitted. Ext.P8 judgment has admittedly become final. In such circumstances the finding in Ext.P9 that Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar is a convict and that it would not be desirable to issue an FL3 licence to a firm of which his wife is a Managing Partner cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow

¶38

W.P(C).No.29365 of 2010

¶39

-:3:-

¶40

the writ petition, quash Ext.P9 and direct the Excise Commissioner to reconsider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law having due regard to the facts stated in the writ petition and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to submit a representation setting out their contentions and documents which they choose to rely on along with a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.

¶42

ahg.

¶43

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶44

W.P(C).No.29365 of 2010

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

22^nd November, 2010

M/S.Kallada Holiday Inn v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kallada Holiday Inn v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Abraham Vs the Secretary

Radhamony Vs Thiruvalla Municipality and Others

L.Aloshious Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kizhakkeveettil Vijayan Vs Payyannur Municipality and Other

C.R.Joseph Vs M/S. Indus Towers Ltd.

Sumithra Vs the District Collector