Dismissed

C.K.Gopi v. the Chief Secretary

Kerala HC21 Jun 2018WA/1126/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench of two judges dismissed a writ appeal challenging the refusal to renew an FL3 bar licence held by a hotel. The appellant argued a new Church entrance violated distance rules. The Court held that the relaxation provision applies since the entrance existed prior to the continuous licence period and allowed the expiry of the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed and the parties were left to suffer their respective costs.

C.K.Gopi Vs the Chief Secretary — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WA.No. 1126 of 2018 IN WPC. 5165/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5165/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-05-2018

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. C.K.GOPI AGED 64 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN, SHIVAS VEEDU, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. AJI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN, ALUMTHARAYIL, PANAMBALAM, ARPPOOKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, (GOVERNMENT OF KERALA), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶15

WA.No. 1126 of 2018

¶16

¶17

4. THE EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶18

5. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, PMG BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

6. THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, ETTUMANOOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ETTUMANOOR.

¶20

7. THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, THIRUNAKKARA MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶21

8. LICENCY SUNOJ KURIAN, PALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶22

R1-R7 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO

¶23

R8 BY ADV.SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.

¶26

W.A. No. 1126 of 2018

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2018

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶31

The controversy in the appeal revolves around a short issue as to whether the 8^th respondent's bar licence could be renewed in view of the changed circumstances in which a Church has a new entrance

¶32

from 2007. The provisos relied upon by the appellant and the 8^th respondent are as follows:-

¶33

“Provided further that if any Educational Institution/ Temple/Church/Mosque or Burial Ground comes into existence subsequent to the grant of licence it shall not disentitle such bar attached hotels for continuance:

¶34

xx xx

¶35

Provided also that the licences of any bar hotel that remain defunct for more than six months either during the period of validity of the licence or after its expiry, shall not be renewed:

¶36

Provided also that in the case of hotels which had FL3 licence as on 31^st March, 2014 and having valid three star, four star, five star, five star deluxe, heritage, heritage grand or heritage classic classification from the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, the FL3 licence held by such hotels shall be renewed.”

¶37

The appellant relies on the 2^nd proviso as extracted hereinabove and

¶38

the 8^th respondent on the other two.

¶39

WA 1126/2018

¶40

¶41

On facts as seen from the impugned judgment, the FL3

¶42

licence to the premises was granted in the name of one M.S.Mohanan initially as early as in the year 1987. The licence was transferred in the name of the father of the 8^th respondent on 09-01-1997 and then in the name of the petitioners. It continued unabated till 31-03-2015 on which date, there was a change in the liquor policy of the Government, on which the FL3 licences stood cancelled. Even on implementation of liquor policy, confining FL3 licences to five star hotels, there was a licence for beer and wine parlours granted to the other classified hotels under FL11. The 8^th respondent hence had an FL11 licence during the said period. The liquor policy again stood altered in the year 2017 when the three and above star hotel classifications were granted FL3 licences.

¶43

In the circumstances of the change in policy, the earlier licencees were renewed their FL3 licences. It is in this context the proviso as last extracted hereinabove was introduced. This enabled such licences, which existed as on 31-03-2014, to be continued, without the rigour of conditions for the first grant being applied. This was imminent on the change in policy since the 1^st proviso

¶44

WA 1126/2018

¶45

¶46

extracted hereinabove also provided that after the first grant of

¶47

licence, if any religious institution came to be established, distance rule would not stand against the licence being continued.

¶48

The contention of the petitioners regarding the 2^nd

¶49

proviso as extracted hereinabove is the cancellation of FL3 licence. We have to notice that the 8^th respondent continued with an FL11 licence, which also had the same rigour on the distance rule for initial grant. We also notice that the new entrance, which is projected to assert violation of distance rule, was in the year 2007, when during and after that licence was continued unabated as FL3 and FL11. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We dismiss the Writ appeal, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

K. VINOD CHANDRAN Judge

¶52

Sd/ASHOK MENON Judge

¶53

dkr

C.K.Gopi v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Gopi v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.K.Subair Vs State of Kerala

Sarasan K.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Ibrahimkutty Vs the State of Kerala

Oasis Trading Company Vs State of Kerala

Manager, Bata Shoe Store Vs a.L.Domini

Valsamma John Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police