Disposed

Isha Athussunna Al-Islamia Juma Masjid v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017WP(C)/30096/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Additional 8th Respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Excise) to consider and pass appropriate orders on a petition filed by the petitioners on 23.10.2017 regarding an FL1 retail outlet issue, within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional 8th Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petition dated 23.10.2017 within one month.

Isha Athussunna Al-Islamia Juma Masjid Vs the State of… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 30096 of 2017 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ISHA ATHUSSUNNA AL-ISLAMIA JUMA MASJID, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, NORTH PARAVUR -683 513, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY -

¶8

MR. K.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 77 YEARS.

¶9

2. PANKAJASHAN NAIR @ S.P.NAIR, AGED 95 YEARS, S/O.SANKUNNI PILLA, GOVINDAVILASAM, KACHERIPPADY, MILLS ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. DR.PRIYESH A.A.,

¶11

AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.DR.K.K. ABU BAKER, "PRIYA VIHAR", KACHERIPPADY, NORTH PARAVUR -683 513, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4. NADIRSHA,

¶13

AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.A.K. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNAM, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM -693 513.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.P.T.SEBASTIAN TOMY

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶17

2. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.

¶18

3. PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NORTH PARAVUR -683 513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

2/-

¶20

-2-

¶21

WP(C).No. 30096 of 2017 (J)

¶22

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 002

¶23

5. THE S.P.ALWAYE (RURAL), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 025

¶24

6. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE HEAD QUARTERS, BAKERY JUNCTION ROAD, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.

¶25

7. ROSAMMA CHACKO, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.CHACKO, KURISINGAL HOUSE, PART VIEW ROAD, NORHT PARAVUR- 683 513.

¶26

*ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED

¶27

*Addl. R8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA STATE.

¶28

*ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/17 IN IA.NO.18244/2017.

¶29

R1,R4 TO R6,ADDL.R8 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA R2 BY SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, R3 BY SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

sts

¶32

WP(C).No. 30096 of 2017 (J)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1.8.2017 BEARING NO. PH 1 -8210/2017 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.8.2017 BEARING NO. PH -1 -8383/2017 ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH REGARDS TO D&O LICENSE

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 22.8.2017 FILED IN OS NO. 506/2017 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PARAVUR THAHASILDAR INSPECTION REPORT WITH SITE PLAN DATED 29.8.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON THE LOCAL RESIDENTS COMPLAINT DATED 1.8.2017

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.7.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶40

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS DATED 5.8.2017

¶41

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA (RURAL) BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS, DATED 5.8.2017

¶42

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PAPER CUTTING SHOWING EH NEWS AND PHOTO OF PROTEST STAGED BY LOCAL RESIDENTS AND OTHERS, IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 7.8.2017 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23/10/17 FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE ERNAKULAM, BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)

¶43

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/8/2017 IN IA.NO.1409/2017 IN APPEAL NO.714/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶49

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.30096 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------

¶50

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2017

¶51

J U D G M E N T

¶52

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to close down the FL1 retail outlet of the 7^th respondent situated in a building bearing No.256/1(A) in Ward No.VIII of the Paravur Municipality and for other consequential reliefs.

¶53

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.19180/2017 producing therewith Ext.P9, a petition dated 23.10.2017 submitted before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Excise Division Office, Ernakulam, who is the additional 8^th respondent in this writ petition, wherein the petitioners have highlighted their grievances.

¶54

During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the Additional 8^th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 petition, with notice to the

¶55

W.P.(C)No.30096 of 2017

¶56

:-2-:

¶57

petitioners and also to other affected persons.

¶58

The learned Senior Government Pleader with reference to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.19180/2017 would point out that the statement made in paragraph 2 of the said affidavit that such a representation is moved as directed by this Court for directing the 2^nd respondent to remove the FL1 retail outlet, is factually incorrect, inasmuch as no such order was passed. The said submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader is recorded.

¶59

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4 and additional 8^th respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Corporation and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Municipality. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 7^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶60

Since Ext.P9 petition submitted by the petitioners dated 23.10.2017 is now pending consideration before the additional 8^th respondent, without going into the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the additional 8^th

¶61

W.P.(C)No.30096 of 2017

¶62

:-3-:

¶63

respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 petition, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent Corporation, the 3^rd respondent Municipality and also the 7^th respondent.

¶64

Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶65

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶68

ami/12.12.17

¶69

//True copy//

¶70

P.A.to Judge

Isha Athussunna Al-Islamia Juma Masjid v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Isha Athussunna Al-Islamia Juma Masjid v. the State of Kerala

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

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

Mohanan M.B Vs Co-Operative Housing Society

Ranjit N. Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Jose Varghese Vs the Regional Service Co-Operative Bank, Kaduthuruthy Branch

Pradeep.S Vs the Special Sale Officer

Sunil Vs Vellanikkara Service Co-Operative Bank, NO.545