The High Court dismissed these writ appeals arising from Single Judge orders rejecting petitions challenging the refusal to renew FL-3 liquor licences. The court held that the single judge correctly dismissed the petitions as the requested relief could not be granted per the terms of the Supreme Court's Balu judgment and its 11.07.2017 clarificatory order.
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 P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939
WA.No. 2213 of 2017 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30400/2017 DATED 03-11-2017.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
HOTEL VIRAD, N.H.KOTTAKKAL, EDARIKKODE P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.VIJAYAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.M.K.PADMANABHAN NAIR(LATE).
BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. STAT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MALAPPURAM-676 505.
BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2017 ALONG WITH WA.2216/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WA.No. 2213 of 2017 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A : PHOTOCOPY OF THE CITATION, 2017(1)KHC 26(SC) STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPT. AND OTHERS VS.K.BALU & ANOTHER.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/
P.N.RAVINDRAN &
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.
============================ W.A.Nos.2213 & 2216 of 2017
============================ Dated this the 13th day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
P.N.Ravindran, J.
These appeals arise from the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.30400 and 31540 of 2017. By the said judgment delivered on 03.11.2017, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by these appellants wherein they had challenged the order passed by the Excise Commissioner declining to renew the FL-3 licences held by them which were valid till 31.03.2015 on the ground that the request for renewal if granted would offend the orders passed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in State of Tamil Nadu and others v. K.Balu and another [2017 (6) SCC 715] and the clarificatory order passed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India on 11.07.2017, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.31540 of 2017.
W.A.Nos.2213 & 2216 of 2017
2
application for licence has been declined on the ground that the building where the hotel is being run is not situate in a Municipal area but in Edarikode Panchayat. The petitioner contends that NH-66 which passes through Kottackal town and consequently through Kottackal Municipality is bounded on one side by Kottackal Municipality and on the other by Edarikode Panchayat, that in the case of Hotel Ridgess Inn which is situate in Kottackal Municipality, licence has been renewed after the clarificatory order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, but the appellant's application for renewal was rejected on the ground that the building in respect of which the licence is applied for, though situate within 500 metres from Hotel Ridgess Inn is situate within the local limits of Edarikode Panchayat and not in Kottackal Municipality. The same is the case set out by the appellant in W.A.No.2216 of 2017. Its contention is that licence issued to Kallada Hotel has been renewed though it is by the side of the very same National Highway NH 47 (now NH 544) and declined to the appellant for the reason that its hotel building is situate within the local limits of Nadathara Grama Panchayat.
W.A.Nos.2213 & 2216 of 2017
3
clarificatory order passed on 11.07.2017, but notwithstanding the fact the hotels run by the appellants are situate by the side of the very same National Highway and in close vicinity to the premises in respect of the licences have been renewed, licences have been declined to the appellants on the ground that their buildings are situate not within Municipal limits but within the local limits of a Grama Panchayat.
What the appellants seek is virtually an interpretation of the clarificatory order passed by the Apex Court on 11.07.2017 which in our opinion cannot be attempted by us. As matters now stand, the relief prayed for by the appellants cannot be granted on the terms of the clarificatory order. The learned single Judge has in our opinion, rightly dismissed the writ petitions. The writ appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
stu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the decline to renew an FL-3 licence on grounds contrary to the Supreme Court's Bald order and its clarificatory order of 11.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Tamil Nadu and others v. K.Balu and anotherReferred¶29
State of Tamil Nadu and others v. K.Balu and another [2017 (6) SCC 715] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hotel Virad
State of Kerala
P.N. Ravindran
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
