Dismissed

Rajendran P.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2017WA/1319/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an interim order directing authorities to ensure compliance with Supreme Court principles while considering an FL-11 licence renewal. The Bench dismissed the appeal, holding the direction was not objectionable and that the remedy for alleged violation lies in invalidation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed without interference with the impugned interim order.

Rajendran P.K Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/8TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶7

WA.No. 1319 of 2017 () IN WP(C).13837/2017

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13837/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-04-2017.

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

RAJENDRAN P.K,

¶11

AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, PUZHAKKAL, MARLA P.O., MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶14

HOTEL JOANCE REGENCY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.JILMON JOHN.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001.

¶17

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KERALA PIN-695 001.

¶18

THE DEPUT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, IDUKKI-685 584.

¶19

R BY SRI P.P. THAJUDEEN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶21

29-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶23

------------------------------------------W.A No. 1319 of 2017 ( ) ------------------------------------------

¶24

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2017.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Antony Dominic,J.

¶27

Heard both sides. This appeal is filed challenging the interim order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 13837 of 2017.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that by the impugned order, the learned single Judge has clarified the obvious position that while considering the claim of the first respondent for renewal of his FL-11 licence, the authorities under the Abkari Act shall ensure compliance with the principles laid down by the apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others v. K. Balu and another¹ . Such a direction cannot be of any objection to anyone.

¶29

On the other hand, if the appellant has a case that despite the order to the above effect, licence has been granted in violation

1 2017(1) KHC26 (SC)

W.A No. 1319/2017

-2-

of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the remedy available to the appellant is to move for invalidating the action so taken by the authorities. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶35

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶36

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶37

¶38

W.A No. 1319/2017 -3-

Rajendran P.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran P.K 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

Shanmughan Vs District Collector

M/S. Surya Catering Services Vs Assistant Commissioner

Saramma Binu Vs B.Chandra Bose

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S. Sopariwala Exports

P.N.Suresh Vs Authority for Clarification

A.P.Ibrahimkutty Vs the District Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvananthapuram