The petitioner challenged an order regarding his entitlement to conduct a Toddy Shop. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no legal sustenance in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, citing a Division Bench judgment.
Discretionary relief sought to conduct a Toddy Shop pending further orders was denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 14266 of 2015 (G)
PETITIONER :
GANGADHARAN
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, VILAYOOR AMSOM, PATTAMBI TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MALAPPURAM-676 505.
4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C). No. 14266 of 2015
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to
declare that the petitioner is entitled to conduct the Toddy Shop in Group V in Perinthalmanna Excise Range till the result of the second sample marked as 'B” is received in the light of the findings of Ext.P4 and Exts.P5 and P6 orders of this Court and for other related reliefs.
In view of the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Ramanan v. State of Kerala [2016(2) KLT 62] the legal question with respect to the judgment relied on by the petitioner has no legal sustenance and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in the light of the Division bench Judgment.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE
dlk/18/7/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to conduct a Toddy Shop pending the result of a second sample.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramanan v. State of KeralaReferred¶26
Ramanan v. State of Kerala [2016(2) KLT 62]
GANGADHARAN
STATE OF KERALA
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
