Disposed

Save Madambi Action Council v. the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Dec 2017WP(C)/12882/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the opening of a liquor shop in Alangad Grama Panchayath under Article 226. The respondent Corporation informed the Court that the proposal to shift the shop was dropped. The Court closed the petition noting this submission, leaving other contentions open.

What did the court decide?

The court closed the petition noting the respondent's submission that the proposal was dropped.

Save Madambi Action Council Vs the Kerala State Beverages… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WP(C).No. 12882 of 2017 (I) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

1. SAVE MADAMBI ACTION COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SMT.JHANCY DEVASSIKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.JOHN, KARIAPILLY HOUSE, KONGORPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN: 683 518 (MEMBER, WARD NO.19 ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH)

¶7

2. KONGORPILLY WEST RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION (KWRA), REG.NO.EKM/TC/553/2012, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FRANLIN, AGED 48, S/O.JOSEPH, CHERIYAKATTAYATH HOUSE, KONGORPILLY, ERNAKULAM DT., PIN: 683 518.

¶8

3. SUSTHIRA VIKASANA MISSION, REG.NO.EKM 590/10, JANASREE MHATMA, MADAMBI, P.O.KONGORPILLY 683 518 REPRESENTED BY SABU JOSEPH, AGED 40, S/O.VARKEYKUTTY, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, MADAMBI, KONGORPILLY P.O.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.K.C.KURIYAN SRI.B.A.EASWAR PRASAD.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶13

3. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEAD QUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

4. THE DEPPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM 682 017.

¶15

WP(C).No. 12882 of 2017 (I)

¶16

5. THE ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NARIKODE P.O., ALUVA, PIN: 683 511, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALANAGAD VILLAGE 682 518.

¶18

7. SAJEEV K.S, KALISSERY HOUSE, KONGORPILLY, PIN: 683 518.

¶19

ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BY ADV. SRI B PREMNATH R1 BY SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC R2,R3,R4 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MABLE.C. KURIAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN R7 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Hr.

¶22

WP(C).No. 12882 of 2017 (I)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH OF THE AREA.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A7-2531/17 DATED 5/4/17.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION AND RECEIPT DATED 7/4/17. EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM DT. 7/4/17 IN MATHRUBHUMI. EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AGITATION RALLY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/4/17. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 9/4/17.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶29

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13-03-2017.

¶30

EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 05-04-2017.

// TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE.

Hr..

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶35

-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.12882 of 2017

¶36

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2017

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioners, who are stated to be social organisations functioning in Alangad Grama Panchayath in Ernakulam District, have approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 not to shift or open the liquor shop of the first respondent in the building bearing H.No.19/104 B situated in Alangad Grama Panchayath. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P3 representation within a reasonable time, after granting an opportunity of being heard to the first petitioner.

¶39

On 11.04.2017, the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the first respondent and the learned Government

¶40

W.P.(C) No.12882 of 2017 :-2-:

¶41

Pleader took notice for respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. Notice by speed post was issued to respondents 5 and 7. As per the order in I.A. No.6293 of 2017, Adv. B. Premnath was appointed as Advocate Commissioner, who has submitted a report dated 17.04.2017, after conducting an inspection. This Court, on 18.04.2017, has also granted an order of status quo as on that date, which order still remains in force.

¶42

Today, when this writ petition was taken up for further consideration, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, viz., the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited, that the proposal to shift their liquor shop to building bearing No. H.No.19/104 B in Alangad Grama Panchayath has already been dropped and they have no intention to shift their liquor shop to that building.

¶43

In such circumstances, nothing survives in this writ petition and the same is closed recording the aforesaid

¶44

W.P.(C) No.12882 of 2017 :-3-:

¶45

submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Corporation, leaving open the contentions

¶46

raised by both sides.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶49

bpr

¶50

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Save Madambi Action Council v. the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Save Madambi Action Council v. the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Sasikumar Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

A.N. Vasanthy Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Mohanan M.B Vs Co-Operative Housing Society

Ranjit N. Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sreekumar Vs the Regional Transport Authority