Disposed

H. Sathya Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2017RP/489/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition challenging a judgment on foreign liquor shop licensing parameters, the Court directed the competent authority to obtain the petitioner's representations and ensure an opportunity of hearing is afforded before any final licence decision is taken.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent directed to take up Ext.P3 representation, hear the petitioner, and dispose of it within one month complying with previous Court parameters.

H. Sathya Shankara Bhat Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/31ST JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 489 of 2017 (K) IN WP(C).14102/2017

¶6

WP(C) 14102/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA =============

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

H.SATHYA SHANKARA BHAT HILLE MANE,NARAYANAMANGALAM KUMBALA P.O.,KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, EXCISE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARGODE-671121

¶13

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033

¶14

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KASARAGODE-671121

¶15

5. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, CIVIL STATION VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGODE-671121

¶16

6. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEVCO VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033

¶17

R6 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶21

- - - - R.P.No.489 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14102 of 2017

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2017

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This review petition has been filed by the petitioner calling into question the judgment of this Court dated 12.05.2017, to a very limited extent. The petitioner says that his contentions in the writ petition was that the respondent should be restrained from starting and conducting a Foreign Liquor shop in building bearing No.13/164 of the Kumbala Gramapanchayath. The petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his case and I see that he had also preferred Ext.P3 representation, which is stated to be pending before the respondents 2 and 3.

¶25

The learned counsel for the review petitioner, Sri.Thomas T.Varghese submits that at the time of this writ petition was heard, the judgment was delivered in a batch matter in which his writ petition was also included. He says that it was in such circumstances that he was unable to bring to the notice

¶26

R.P.No.489 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14102 of 2017

¶27

¶28

of this Court the specific contentions of the petitioner in this case.

¶29

I have heard Sri.Thomas T.Varghese, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri.T.Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the 6^th respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶30

The judgment, that is sought to be reviewed, was delivered on 12.05.2017, wherein this Court had only recorded the general parameters and protocol to be followed by the officers of the Excise and another departments in granting or refusing licences to bar/liquor shops. I am certain that these parameters and protocol would apply in full force in this case also and therefore, all that is required to be now done is to ensure that the petitioner is also heard before any such final orders are issued by the authorities in terms of the said judgment.

¶31

As I have already indicated above, the petitioner has

¶32

preferred Ext.P3 before the respondents 2 and 3. However, I notice that the 4^th respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kasaragode is the competent authority to take a decision in this matter. He has been arrayed as the 4^th respondent in this

¶33

R.P.No.489 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14102 of 2017 3

¶34

review petition.

¶35

In such circumstances, even though I do not deem it necessary to admit this review petition, it is only apposite that I clarify that while a decision is taken by the 4^th respondent relating to the grant of licence to the 6^th respondent for an FL1 licence for the shop proposed in building bearing door No.13/164 of Kumbala Gramapanchayath, the petitioner also shall be heard and his objections considered.

¶36

Sri.T.Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the 6^th respondent, at this point, says that according to his instructions, the 6^th respondent has already obtained a licence for the proposed shop. However, this licence has not been brought on record.

¶37

In such circumstances, I deem it necessary that the 4^th respondent take up Ext.P3 representation, stated to be pending, and to dispose it of after hearing the petitioner, even if it is ex post facto to the grant of the licence, and to verify whether all the parameters and protocol as has been fixed by this Court and by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v.

¶38

R.P.No.489 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.14102 of 2017

¶39

¶40

K.Balu [(2017) 2 SCC 281] have been complied in its letter and spirit.

¶41

I, therefore, close this review petition at the admission

¶42

stage itself directing the 4^th respondent to take up Ext.P3 representation of the petitioner and to dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶45

¶46

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

H. Sathya Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. Sathya Shankara Bhat 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

Dr.Mary Mathew Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

V.P.Ibrahim Kutty Vs Hotel Park Residency

K.Karunakaran Vs the Assistant Excise Commisioner

K.Mohanan Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

M/S. Profand Vayalat Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Intergrated Rubain Exports Limited Vs Vijaya Bank