Disposed

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

Kerala HC13 Dec 2017WP(C)/39043/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus against opening a liquor shop. It directed the District Excise Commissioner to consider a representation within one month while maintaining an interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation within one month; interim order maintaining the stay on the liquor shop continues.

Save Varapuzha Action Council Vs Kerala… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 39043 of 2017 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SAVE VARAPUZHA ACTION COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PATRON, VALSALA BALAN, W/O BALAN, AGED 53 YEARS, BHAGAVATHY PARAMBIL, CHIRAKKAKOM, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 517, (WARD MEMBER, WARD NO.14, VARAPUZHA PANCHAYAT)

¶8

2. WILSON C.N., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O NANAPPAN, CHITTETHU HOUSE, THEVARKAD, VARAPUZHA-683 517.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.K.C.KURIYAN

¶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, COMMISSIONARATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEAD QUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

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

¶15

WP(C).No. 39043 of 2017 (E)

¶16

5. EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PARAVUR EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.

¶17

6. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS DIVISION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DT-683 513.

¶18

7. VARAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT VARAPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-683 517.

¶19

8. ANEES JOSEPH, W/O KURISINKAL JOSEPH, KURISINGAL HOUSE, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 517.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, R2-R6 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIMAL K NATH R7 BY ADV. SRI.ASHOK B.SHENOY, SC,

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sdr/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 39043 of 2017 (E)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 24.11.2017 TO R2. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 24.11.2017 TO R5 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 24.11.2017 TO R6 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 28.11.2017 TO R7 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH OF THE LOCALITY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NEW ITEM PUBLISHED IN NEWS PAPERS EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF R7 DT. 24.11.2017.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 07.12.17 FIELD BEFORE R4 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶32

--------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.39043 of 2017

¶33

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2017

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioners are before 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 open the liquor shop run by the 1^st respondent Corporation in the building situated in Survey No.322/6C of Varapuzha Village owned by the 8^th respondent. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 representation within a reasonable time, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the 1^st petitioner and further directing the 1^st respondent not to open the liquor shop in the aforesaid building.

¶36

On 05.12.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 2 to 6 and the respective learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 1^st and 7^th respondents. This Court has issued urgent notice by special messenger to the 8^th respondent and also granted an interim order directing respondents 1 to 5 not to open liquor shop run by the 1^st respondent in the building owned by the 8^th respondent and situated in Survey No.322/6C of the Varapuzha Village.

¶37

W.P.(C).No.39043 of 2017

¶38

¶39

During the pendency of this writ petition, the 1^st petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 representation before the 4^th respondent against the opening of FL-1 shop in the building owned by the 8^th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representation with notice to the petitioners, the 1^st respondent, the 7^th respondent and also the 8^th respondent.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P9 representation is received and pending before the 4^th respondent, the said respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the persons concerned.

¶41

The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that, the said Corporation has not so far submitted any application before the 4^th respondent to shift its FL-1 shop.

¶42

Having considered the rival submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 4^th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 representation, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioners, the 1^st respondent Corporation, the 7^th respondent Grama Panchayat and also to the 8^th respondent and pass appropriate orders thereon, 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. Till such orders are

¶43

W.P.(C).No.39043 of 2017

¶44

¶45

passed, the interim order granted in this writ petition shall continue to be in force.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Save Varapuzha Action Council v. 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

Punja Special Officer, Punja'S Special Office, Alappuzha Vs Sreejith T.K

T.P. Surendran Vs Mulakulam Service Co-Operative Bank

Sujatha Mathummal Vs the Kannur District Co-Operative Bank

Savithri Vs the Senior Manager, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

M.Sraju Vs Cherpulassery Co-Operative Urban Bank LTD.NO.1696

George Mathew Vs Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies