V.P.Ibrahim Kutty Vs Hotel Park Residency

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/24TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 470 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.12822/2017 DATED 16-05-2017.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:

¶8

V.P. IBRAHIM KUTTY, S/O. MOOSAKKUTTY, ''VASIKH'', KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 620.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR,

¶10

SMT.V.A.HARITHA, SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH, SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR, SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. HOTEL PARK RESIDENCY, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.SUNOJ KURIAN.

¶13

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

¶14

3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KERALA, PIN-695 001.

¶15

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE-673 631.

¶16

5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BRIDGES), KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 631.

¶17

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.ARUN THOMAS, SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL. R2 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER.

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2017, ALONG WITH RP NO. 471 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

RP.No. 470 of 2017

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶23

ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN ONLINE MANORAMA DAILY DATED 05/05/2017.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

“CR”

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶31

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶32

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2017

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

These applications for review, filed by the

¶35

third parties, against the judgments of this Court dated 16.05.2017 in W.P.(C) No.12822 of 2017 and 19.05.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 16647 of 2017, have been

¶36

filed on the foundational basis that this Court had erred in declaring the status of the stretches of roads between Kannur-Vengalam-Kuttippuram and Cherthala-Oachira-Thiruvananthapuram as not being National Highways.

¶37

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶38

-: 2 :-

¶39

The leave applications that preceeded

¶40

these review petitions were allowed by order dated 07.06.2017, to which I will refer in detail

¶41

presently, because I was of the view that since this lis has spilled over to the public domain, it thus no longer continuing itself to the character of mere adversarial lis, it is only appropriate that the matter be considered more comprehensively. Even before the Special Leave Applications were admitted, I had minuted certain prefatory observations in my order dated 06.06.2017 as under:

¶42

“Even though this review has not been admitted and leave to appeal has not been considered by me as prayed for by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate taking into account the submissions made before me today to make certain prefatory observations as under:

¶43

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶44

-: 3 :-

¶45

2. Pending this leave petition, I deem it necessary to clarify that none of my directions contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed were intended to be construed that the Bars/Liquor Shops were to be opened. What I mean to say is that under the terms of my directions in the said judgment, the Deputy Excise Commissioners were obligated to consider each of the applications pending before them and to take a decision thereon taking into account the relevant factors as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. V.K.Balu (2017 (1) KHC 26 (SC)). This empowers the respective Deputy Excise Commissioners to even reject the applications if they were informed by either the Public Works Department or any other authorities having jurisdiction over Highways that the stretches on which these shops are situated are either National Highways or State Highways.

¶46

3. It is strange that my directions have been interpreted by the Deputy Excise Commissioners to mean that it is intended to open such Bars/Liquor Shops.

¶47

4. I reiterate that the effect of my judgment is that the Deputy Excise Commissioners were obligated to consider all the factors and allow such

¶48

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶49

-: 4 :-

¶50

operations, if legally permissible, or to reject the same if they had any suspicion on the basis of any valid notification under the National Highway Authorities Act that the roads continue to be National/State Highways.

¶51

List this case tomorrow along with the connected cases. Handover to both sides.”

¶52

These matters were thereafter listed on 07.06.2017. On that day, the learned Senior

¶53

Government Pleader who appeared for both the Public Works Department and the Excise Department conceded, without any reservation, that the roads in question namely Kannur-Vengalam-Kuttippuram between 148 kms to 318 kms and Cherthala-Oachira-Thiruvananthapuram between 379.100 kms to 551.900 kms were National Highways, as per the relevant notifications, issued by the Union of India, under the provisions of the

¶54

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶55

-: 5 :-

¶56

National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred

¶57

to as 'the Act'). It was also informed to this

¶58

Court on that 13 Bars/Liquor shops, that were

¶59

allowed to operate subsequent to the judgments sought to be reviewed, were also closed down and their licences revoked in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v.

¶60

V.K. Balu [2017 (1) KHC 26(SC)]. Noticing all these submissions, I have recorded a second order in these proceedings on 07.06.2017.

¶61

“Read order dated 06.06.2017.

¶62

2. Today, the learned Senior Government Pleader, who confirms that he is appearing for both the Public Works Department and the Excise Department, to my pointed query, admits that the roads in question, namely, Kannur-VengalamKuttippuram between 148 km to 318 km and Cherthala-Oachira-Thiruvananthapuram between

¶63

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶64

-: 6 :-

¶65

379.100 km to 551.900 km, continue to be National Highways as per the notification issued by the Union of India under Section 2 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶66

3. This submission appears to have been more from the part of the Public Works Department, since they are the authorities who would have a definite view relating to the status of the roads. Since this is the view that has been placed before me by the learned Senior Government Pleader in a rather affirmative manner, it is only appropriate that all action, if any, to open any Bars/ Liquor Shops along these stretches be deferred by the authorities until further orders are issued by this Court.

¶67

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader also tells me that subsequent to the judgments sought to be reviewed, six FL-11 licences have been issued in Kannur, four in Malappuram and three in Kozhikode Districts. He also informs me that in deference to my observations, that I had recorded in the order dated 06.06.2017, all these thirteen Bars/Liquor Shops have now been directed to stop functioning forthwith. He informs me that as of now no Bar/Liquor Shop is operational in the stretch between Kannur -

¶68

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶69

-: 7 :-

¶70

Vengalam-Kuttippuram and Cherthala - Oachira -Thiruvananthapuram.

¶71

5. This having been recorded, it goes without saying that none of these Bars/ Liquor Shops shall be allowed to operate based on any licence given to them or renewed to them until such time as a fresh look is taken in this matter and concluded.

¶72

6. What worries me, however, is the fact that thirteen licences have been issued by the respective Deputy Commissioners of Excise in Kannur, Kozhikode and Malappuram, even though it appears that the PWD authorities were all along aware that these roads are notified and continue to be so even when the judgments, sought to be reviewed, were delivered. I am told by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the respective Deputy Commissioners did not obtain any clarification, clearance or certificates from the Public Works Department and that those licences have been issued merely because of the judgments, which are sought to be reviewed. This submission is ineffable, to say the least, because, as I have already recorded above, I had given no direction to any of the Deputy Commissioners to grant licences or to permit any Bars/ shops to open.

¶73

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶74

-: 8 :-

¶75

7. It, therefore, becomes incumbent upon me to ensure the fair name and dignity of this Court to inquire as to why such action was taken by the respective Deputy Commissioners. For this purpose, I direct the respondents to place on record the files relating to these thirteen licences issued in Kannur, Kozhikode and Malappuram, which shall be brought to this Court by the respective Deputy Commissioners of Excise personally on 14.06.2017 when these cases are next listed.

¶76

8. I also notice the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader that the authorities concerned, namely both the Public Works Department and the Excise Department had no confusion regarding the status of the Cherthala-OachiraThiruvananthapuram Highway and he says, therefore, that no Bars were opened on that stretch. However, he says that as regards the KannurVengalam-Kuttippuram stretch is concerned, even the Public Works Department had a confusion as to its status as a Highway. If there were any such confusion, then obviously, the authorities were obligated to clear the air before rushing to grant licences to willing operators of Bars/Liquor Shops.

¶77

9. Now, that I have noticed the above

¶78

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶79

-: 9 :-

¶80

submission, it will not be justified on my part to leave the matter there and move forward without understanding the specific stand of the Public Works Department in the matter.

¶81

10. I, therefore, direct the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department to file an affidavit detailing the notifications that pertain to these two roads as are available with the department and also inform this Court when they became aware that these roads are not de-notified as is now stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader. He shall also state if requests have been received from the Deputy Commissioners of Excise of the respective districts, before they had caused consideration of the applications of the Bars/Liquor Shops in terms of the directions contained in my judgments, which are sought to be reviewed.

¶82

Post these cases on 14.06.2017.

¶83

4. In obedience to my directions contained in

¶84

my order dated 07.06.2017, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise of Kannur, Kozhikode and Malappuram are present in this Court personally. They have brought

¶85

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶86

-: 10 :-

¶87

along with them the relevant files relating to the

¶88

grant of operational permission or licence to the 13 outlets that were permitted to operate within their respective jurisdictions. I have gone through the files in question, which were handed over to me by

¶89

the learned Senior Government Pleader. From the endorsements made on the files, it becomes luculent

¶90

that the Deputy Commissioners of Excise had addressed letters to the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Division in a particular manner. I say 'particular manner' because these communications began by saying that as per the notifications produced in the writ petitions, the roads in question appeared not to be National Highways. They thereafter requested the Executive Engineer to

¶91

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017,

¶92

R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 &

¶93

R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶94

-: 11 :-

¶95

clarify whether the roads would be State or such other Highway which would attract the constraints of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K.

¶96

Balu 's case (Supra) . Interestingly the answer given by the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department to those letters was that these roads are not State Highways. Ineffably, he did not choose to

¶97

clarify that, notwithstanding the notifications referred to by the writ petitioners in the writ petitions which led to these review applications, the roads continue to be National Highways. There was certainly a cause of confusion at this stage; the question is whether it was done deliberately or by a bona fide mistake.

¶98

The answers to these apparent confusion

¶99

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶100

-: 12 :-

¶101

lie in the affidavit that has been deposed to by the

¶102

Principal Secretary of Public Works Department, Government of Kerala, filed in obedience to my directions on 07.06.2017. The affidavit makes very interesting reading and I think it is appropriate and apposite that the same be extracted in its full.

¶103

“Dr Asha Thomas, D/o Dr P A Thomas, aged 54, Principal Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Public Works Department, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

¶104

1. I am the Principal Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Public Works Department. I am conversant with the facts of the review petition as revealed from the relevant records and am competent to swear to this affidavit.

¶105

2. As the Principal Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Public Works Department, I am directed by the Hon'ble High Court as per order dated 07/06/2017 in the above Review Petition to file an affidavit detailing the notifications that pertains to the roads Kannur-Vengalam-Kuttippuram between

¶106

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶107

148 km to 318 km and Cherthala-OachiraThiruvananthapuram between 379.100 km to 551.900 km as are available with the Department and also to inform the Court as to when they became aware that these roads are not denotified. It is also directed to state if requests have been received from the Deputy Commissioner of Excise of the respective Districts before they have caused consideration of the application of the Bars/Liquor shops in terms of the directions in the judgment, which are sought to be reviewed.

¶108

3. It is humbly submitted that Notifications are issued in respect of the National Highways (hereinafter referred to in this affidavit as “the NH” for brevity and convenience) by the Central Government under two Acts, namely, the National Highways Act, 1956, and the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988. Section 2 of the National Highways Act, 1956 has a Schedule that enumerates all the NHs in the country. Whenever the Central Government desires to entrust the development or maintenance of any NH to the State Government or to the National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to in this affidavit as “the NHAI” for brevity and convenience), which is the Authority set up by

¶109

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶110

-: 14 :-

¶111

Central Government to develop, maintain and manage the NHs, it issues a notification in the official Gazette under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956. Thus, whenever the entrusted authority changes, the Central Government issues another notification regarding the change. When a stretch of NH is entrusted to the NHAI, the Central Government also issues another notification under Section 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988, to enable the NHAI to take up all the functions of development, maintenance etc. In this case, the entire NH 66 (consisting of the parts of the old NH 17 and NH 47) which includes the Stretch Kannur-VengalamKuttipuram in NH 17 from 148 Km to 318 Km and Stretch Cherthalai-Ochira-Thiruvananthapuram in NH 47 from Km 379.100 to Km 551 have been enumerated in Schedule II of the National Highway Act, 1956.

¶112

4. By notification SO. 485(E), dated 26^th February,2010 under Section 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988, the Central Government entrusted both these stretches to the NHAI. Section 11 of the Act, 1988 makes it clear that this notification is for the purpose of facilitating the functions of NHAI in developing the highway. The

¶113

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶114

-: 15 :-

¶115

parallel notification SO 486(E) of the same date under Section 5 of the National Highway Act, 1956, made it clear that only the remainder of NH 17 and NH 47 were remaining entrusted with the State Government of Kerala. (There are also notifications dated 7^th May, 2010,SO 1035(E) and 1036(E), that make it clear that neither of these stretches remained entrusted with the State Government at that point of time.).

¶116

5. On 5^th March, 2014, by SO 675(E) under Sec 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act,1988, the stretch Cherthalai - Oachir - Thiruvananthapuram in NH 47 from Km 379.100 to Km 551 was omitted from the notification 485(E). On the same date, by a parallel notification SO 676(E) under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 , that stretch of NH 47 was entrusted back to the State Government of Kerala for maintenance, management etc.

¶117

6. By SO 2061(E) dated 14^th August,2014, under Section 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988, the stretch Kannur-VengalamKuttipuram Km 148 to Km 318 was omitted from the notification SO 485(E) on the same date, by a parallel notification SO 2062(E) under Section 5 of the

¶118

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶119

-: 16 :-

¶120

National Highway Act, 1956, the entire NH 17 was entrusted back to the State Government of Kerala for maintenance and management etc. Thus, as far as the National Highway Act, 1956 is concerned, as on January 1^st , 2017, both these stretches were NHs entrusted to the State Government of Kerala for maintenance and management.

¶121

7. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Central Government) sends the notifications issued from time to time to the State Government by email. They are also available on the MORTH website for reference. Hence the State Government is able to know the up-to-date status of any stretch of road.

¶122

8. I may also submit that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram had sent a request to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (NH) as per his letter dated 30/05/2014 in pursuance of the judgment dated 19.05.2017 in W.P.(C) No.16705/2017 (K) for clarification as to the Cherthalai-Oachir-Thiruvananthapuram road and Kayamkulam-Attingal-Parippally Highway Road alone and the Chief Engineer replied to the same on 3-6-2017. The Deputy Excise Commissioner of Kannur sent a query to the Executive Engineer (NH) Kannur

¶123

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶124

-: 17 :-

¶125

vide his letter dated 24-5-2017, based on W.P.(C) No.16076/17, but it is yet to be replied to. The PWD department did not have any confusion as to the status of the Kannur-Vengalam-Kuttipuram stretch as a Highway.

¶126

9. The above facts are placed for consideration of this Honourable Court. This Honourable Court may be pleased to accept this affidavit to the files of the case.”

¶127

The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department clearly thus deposes in the affidavit that the Public Works Department did not have any confusion as to the status of the Kannur-VengalamKuttippuram stretch as being a Highway. This one averment in the affidavit goes against the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader on 07.06.2017 and recorded in my order of that day, that there was some confusion prevailing

¶128

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶129

-: 18 :-

¶130

regarding this stretch of the road but not regarding the Cherthala–Oachira- Thiruvananthapuram Highway. However, I must record here that the

¶131

submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader appears to be made under the authority of the instructions that he must have obtained, because I see that even in the files produced before me, there is certainly a confusion that was sought to be generated with respect to the status of the roads, going by the correspondence between the Deputy Commissioner of Excise concerned and the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department concerned.

¶132

The Principal Secretary proceeds to say that these stretches of roads have always remained

¶133

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶134

-: 19 :-

¶135

Highway ever since the notification issued under

¶136

Section 2 of the Act decades ago. She further says that whenever the Central Government desires to

¶137

entrust the development of maintenance of any National Highway to a State or to the National

¶138

Highway Authority of India, it issues a notification under Section 5 of the Act. According to her, when a stretch of NHAI is entrusted, the Central Government issues another notification under Section 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 to enable that authority to take up all the functions of development and maintenance

¶139

of roads. The position of the Public Works Department in Kerala is very clear from the affidavit extracted above. The averments in the

¶140

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶141

-: 20 :-

¶142

affidavit show without any reason for doubt or confusion that the stretches in question continued to be NH-17 or NH-47 as the case may be and that

¶143

now it is re-numbered as NH-66 taking into its fold

¶144

parts of old National Highway-47 and 17. The

¶145

Principal Secretary also has taken great effort in the affidavit to refer to various notifications

¶146

under which omissions were made for the purpose of entrustment of National Highway to NHAI but, at no point of time re-notifying the stretches as being Highways under the definition of the Act.

¶147

The position of the Public Works Department

¶148

being very clear as above, I am only concerned that proceedings were taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise in some of the jurisdictions to allow

¶149

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶150

-: 21 :-

¶151

operation of Bars/Liquor Shops and that they were

¶152

not restrained from doing so by the concerned Executive Engineer or such other authority of the Public Works Department.

¶153

The picture is now very clear that Public

¶154

Works Department, contrary to the assertions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader on 07.06.2017, was throughout aware that these

¶155

stretches of roads continued to be National Highways. It was, therefore, incumbent upon them to ensure that the directions contained in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K. Balu 's case (Supra) were not allowed to be violated by any authority of the Excise on a wrong interpretation of the notifications.

¶156

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶157

As I have already indicated above, the notifications placed before this Court were all notifications under Section 11 of the NHAI Act. It

¶158

is true, as I have already recorded above, that at the first blush some confusion could have been entertained. However, since this Court had no certainty about the stretches of the roads at that time, it was ordered that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise of the concerned areas would have to seek clarification from the Public Works Department with respect to the nature of the roads. Viewed from that angle, no undue advantage or illegal licence could have been granted to anyone to operate a Bar or Liquor Shop on these Highways in violation of the directions contained in V.K. Balu 's case

¶159

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶160

-: 23 :-

¶161

(Supra) . However, it is undisputed that at least 13

¶162

of such Bars/Liquor Shops were allowed to operate in spite of all these information being available to the Public Works Department. This is very distressing especially in view of the affirmative

¶163

and unqualified averments of the Principal Secretary of Public Works Department, in the affidavit sworn to by her, that the Public Works Department had at no time any confusion regarding the status of these roads as being National Highways.

¶164

Coming back to the observations of

¶165

this Court against which the petitioners seem to have objections, I have already recorded in my order dated 07.06.2017, as is extracted above, that

¶166

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶167

-: 24 :-

¶168

there was an initial suspicion that the roads may

¶169

have lost its character as National Highways. This was only a primary or prima facie view, which was

¶170

not supported by any other material on record, other than the notifications produced by the petitioners. As I have already recorded in the said order, if this Court had been convinced that the roads has lost its character as a National Highway, it would have certainly directed the concerned authorities to grant licence, since nothing prevents such grant, if these roads are not National Highways or State Highways. It is on account of a lingering suspicion, fuelled by the

¶171

fact that no material was placed on record by any of the other respondents in the writ petition, that

¶172

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶173

-: 25 :-

¶174

led to this Court to direct the concerned

¶175

authorities to take a view in the matter taking into account all the notifications available, including notifications past and subsequent to the specific notifications produced by the petitioners.

¶176

The judgments in question also

¶177

directed the Deputy Commissioners to obtain the

¶178

views of the Public Works Department, which I thought would be sufficient safeguard in preventing any misrepresentation or misconstruction to the status of the roads concerned. What worries me is

¶179

that in spite of all these safeguards that were inbuilt into my judgments, 13 licences were issued or 13 shops were allowed to operate, all because the authorities concerned did not employ sufficient

¶180

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶181

-: 26 :-

¶182

circumspection and care. Had the Executive Engineer

¶183

of the Public Works Department responded to the query made by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise concerned that the roads in question, indisputably continued to be in National Highways, I am certain that none of these Bars/Liquor Shops would have obtained permission to operate. I still do not understand why this divide was occasioned and how this confusion was engineered and for what purpose.

¶184

However, I do not deem proper to say anything further since the consequences of any further investigation into this, if it is thought necessary

¶185

by the competent officers to indicate against officials who have acted without sufficient diligence, should not be coloured by the views of

¶186

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶187

-: 27 :-

¶188

this Court.

¶189

I have recorded all the above to place

¶190

in perspective the events that unfolded after my

¶191

judgments, sought to be reviewed, were delivered. I am certain that had the directions contained

¶192

therein been implicitly followed by the

¶193

authorities, this day would not have come when licences or permissions were granted to persons to

¶194

operate Bars/Liquor Shops on these stretches of roads, which even according to the various wings of

¶195

the Government, continue to be National Highways for the last several decades. The affidavit filed

¶196

by the Principal Secretary of the Public Works Department cements this position and in my view it would now be impermissible for the various Deputy

¶197

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶198

-: 28 :-

¶199

Commissioners, having jurisdiction of the areas

¶200

through which these two roads run, to grant any further licence or permission to operate the shops.

¶201

All the shops that were closed, when these review applications were pending, obviously, cannot be opened again and any licence issued to them will have to be revoked and cancelled following the procedure known to law.

¶202

The air is now clear; the tenebrious cloud of misinformation and contrived ingenuity has been blown away by the mighty winds of truth and certitude. The proper and relevant notifications are finally on record. The views of the various agencies of the Government are also clear. There cannot be any doubt, any further, that these roads

¶203

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶204

-: 29 :-

¶205

are Highways and therefore, that the constraints of

¶206

the directions of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in V.K. Balu 's case (Supra) would apply on it in all its

¶207

force. No Bar/Liquor Shops can be permitted to

¶208

operate or open on the stretches in violations of

¶209

the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All the Bars that have opened before and pending these

¶210

review applications and closed subsequently, as recorded in the order dated 07.06.2017, would remain shut and closed and no permission will be granted them to operate as long as the rigour of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court continue to operate the field.

¶211

Since I have recorded all the factors

¶212

and all the considerations that have weighed with

¶213

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶214

-: 30 :-

¶215

me in resolution of the anxiety and apprehension

¶216

voiced by the petitioners in these review applications, I do not deem it necessary to keep

¶217

these review applications pending any further. In view of my observations above, it is only appropriate and apposite, that I close these review applications since, as I have already indicated above, these roads are ineluctably National Highways and would continue to be so until such time as the notifications under the Act operate the field.

¶218

These review applications are,

¶219

therefore, closed with my observations as above and

¶220

with the firm directions to the authorities of the

¶221

Excise and the Public Works Department to ensure

¶222

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017, R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017, R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017, R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017, R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017, R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017, R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017, R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017, R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017, R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017, R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017, R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 & R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶223

-: 31 :-

¶224

that no Bars/Liquor Shops are allowed to open or

¶225

operate on these stretches of road, which are now concededly National Highways, in violation of the

¶226

direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K. Balu 's case (Supra) .

¶227

I commend the review applicants who

¶228

have brought these issues to the notice of this Court and in ensuring that things did not go out of hand. If these proceedings and the unfortunate public gaze that was attracted could at least obtain these roads the immediate attention of the authorities concerned in making it and elevating it infrastructurally to the actual status of a Highway, rather than merely been adorned by such a moniker, I think the effort would be worth it. This

¶229

R.P. Nos. 470 & 471 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 12822 of 2017,

¶230

R.P. No.472 in W.P.(C) No.16647 of 2017,

¶231

R.P. No.502 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16075 of 2017,

¶232

R.P. No. 503 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16700 of 2017,

¶233

R.P. No.504 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16076 of 2017,

¶234

R.P. No. 505 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16078 of 2017,

¶235

R.P. No.506 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14362 of 2017,

¶236

R.P. No.507 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.12581 of 2017,

¶237

R.P. No.508 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16706 of 2017,

¶238

R.P. No.509 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16707 of 2017,

¶239

R.P. No.510 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14354 of 2017,

¶240

R.P. No.511 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16079 of 2017 &

¶241

R.P. No.512 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.16077 of 2017

¶242

is a fond hope and I pray that it will fructify

¶243

soon.

¶244

These review petitions are ordered in terms

¶245

of the directions above.

¶246

Sd/-

¶247

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶248

DST

¶249

//True copy//

¶250

P.A. To Judge

V.P.Ibrahim Kutty v. Hotel Park Residency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Ibrahim Kutty v. Hotel Park Residency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.P James Vs Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

N.Krishnan Nampoothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

The Manager, Kpes Higher Secondary School, Kayakkodi Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Dr.Mary Mathew Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

K.Karunakaran Vs the Assistant Excise Commisioner

Sreedharan Nair G. Vs University of Kerala