Dismissed

C.P.Kumaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2015WP(C)/459/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order closing down a liquor shop near Balussery, arguing it was not near a National Highway contrary to recent policy. The Court found no threat to livelihood and no legal mandate for specific shop locations, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with direction to the fourth respondent to consider the first petitioner's representation filed on 2.1.2015.

C.P.Kumaran Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/13TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 459 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

C.P.KUMARAN, CHETHIL HOUSE, KOKKALLOOR HOUSE, BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE.

¶8

SHIJU, KOLATHUVAYAL HOUSE, PANANGAD, BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

ADDL. R5 TO R10 IMPLEADED

¶16

T.A.KRISHNAN, S/O SANKUNNY, MANGALASSERY HOUSE, P.O.BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CHAIRMAN, KAIRALI ROAD MADYA SHOP VIRUDDHA SAMARASAMITHI, BALUSSERY.

¶17

Impleaded as per order dated 20.1.15 in IA 812/14

¶18

PRASANTH KUMAR, KARIMPNAKKAL HOUSE, NANMANDA PANCHAYAT, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE - 673 613.

¶19

VINOD.T., THAROL HOUSE, POONATH P.O., KOTTOOR PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE-673 614.

¶20

PRASANTHAN.T.T., PANANKANDI HOUSE, KOKKALLOOR P.O., BALUSSERI PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE - 673 612.

¶21

SHIJU MON, URUNIYAMKUNNUMMEL, KAKKOOR P.O., KAKKOOR PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE - 673 619.

¶22

BIJU, THEKKUMPALATH HOUSE, PALOLI, KOOTTALIDA PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE - 673 614.

¶23

Impleaded as per order dated 20.1.15 in IA 815/15

¶24

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JUSTIN JACOB ADDL. R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN ADDL. R6 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON ALLESE

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 459 of 2015 (F)

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT. P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY EXCISE DEPARTMENT DATED NIL.

¶29

EXT. P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.3.2014.

¶30

EXT. P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2014

¶31

EXT. P3(a): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.

¶32

EXT. P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2014.

¶33

EXT. P4(a): COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4.

¶34

EXT. P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 2.1.2015.

¶35

EXT. P5(a): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 2.1.2015.

¶36

EXT. P5(b): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.1.2015.

¶37

EXT. P6 : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5.

¶38

EXT. P6(a): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5(a).

¶39

EXT. P6(b): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5(b).

¶40

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.9.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE ACTION COMMITTEE BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER WITH TRANSLATION

¶42

EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.9.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE ACTION COMMITTEE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVES WITH TRANSLATION

¶43

EXT.R5(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AGITATIONS NEAR THE SHOP ORGANISED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS ORGANISATION

¶44

EXT.R5(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE WITH TRANSLATION

¶45

EXT.R5(e): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE WITH TRANSLATION

¶46

EXT.R5(f): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.1.2013 RECEIVED BY THE SAMITHI WITH TRANSLATION

¶47

/TRUE COPY/

¶48

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶49

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶50

W.P.(C)No.459 of 2015 F

¶51

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2015

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

The first petitioner is said to be a resident of the area where Shop No.11018 is situated; the second petitioner is an employee of the shop. Both of them have filed the writ petition assailing Exhibit P4 order of the Government through which the Government has decided to close down certain foreign liquor outlets, which include Shop No.11018 of Balussery in Kozhikode District.

¶54

The principal contention of the petitioners is that in the light of the judgment dated 30.10.2014 in W.P.(C)No. 22195/2014 and batch rendered by this Court, the Government has taken a policy decision either to shift or close down the shops which are situated near the National Highways. According to them, the shop in question is not situated anywhere near the National Highway.

¶55

WPC 459/15

¶56

¶57

When the locus of the petitioners is questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first petitioner being a resident of the area is a consumer and the second petitioner is an employee of the shop. To a specific query from this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the second petitioner, on the closure of the shop, would not be rendered jobless, but may be posted at a different place.

¶58

As a matter of policy, the Government has taken a decision to close down or shift certain retail outlets. Whether the shop in question is situated near the National Highway or not, it is also found mentioned in Exhibit P4. Since it is exclusively owned by the Government, the livelihood of no citizen has been threatened on the closure of the shop. Nor can it be said that the second petitioner will be adversely affected by the policy of the Government. It lies entirely in the discretion of the Government as to which shop is to be closed down and which shop is to be

¶59

¶60

WPC 459/15

¶61

run, subject to any binding judicial directives. It seems that there has been a lot of public protest against continuation of the shop in question, as could be seen from Exhibit R5(c).

¶62

When it comes to the locus of the first petitioner, it cannot be said that there is any provision of law mandating that to serve the needs of a consumer, albeit, of liquor, a shop is required to be established within a particular distance. At any rate, the first petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P5(b) representation, which is yet to be disposed of by the fourth respondent.

¶63

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider Exhibit P5(b) representation of the first petitioner, uninfluenced by any of the observations made while disposing of the present writ petition, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at

¶64

WPC 459/15 4

¶65

any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶66

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶67

tkv

C.P.Kumaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Kumaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amina Vs Keezattur Grama Panchayat

Samuel Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Salis Bijar Vs the Commissioner of Excise

A J John Vs the Thrissur Corporation and Another

Chandrakala Vs Corporation of Cochin

Sunny Kuruvilla Vs Corporation of Cochin