The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking an injunction to stop a ConsumerFED FL-1 shop from operating in a building licensed to the petitioner's hotel FL-11 outlet, finding no statutory violation justifying court intervention.
The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(C).No. 3015 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
PRIYESH KUMAR P AGED 46 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, KALYAN RESIDENCY, QUILANDY, KOZHIKKODU DISTRICT,
BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001.
2 EXCISE COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE TRIVANDRUM – 695 001.
3 DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER. KOZHIKKODE – 673 001.
4 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD. (CONSUMERFED), GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR – 682 016.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, CONSUMERFED BY SRI BIMAL K.NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3015 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of
M/s.Kalyan Residency, a partnership firm, which runs a three star hotel with Beer and Wine vending licence granted by the 3rd respondent Deputy Excise Commissioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate steps to ensure that the 4th respondent CONSUMERFED is not allowed to open its FL-1 shop in the very same building, namely, Komoth Complex, where the petitioner’s Beer and Wine parlour is functioning with a valid FL-11 licence.
up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Senior Government Pleader
took notice for respondents 1 to 3. The learned
Standing Counsel took notice for the 4th
WP(C).No. 3015 of 2018
3
respondent. This Court has passed an interim order to the effect that opening of FL-1 outlet by the 4th respondent in the premises in question will be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.
the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application dated 15.03.2018 for conducting fresh inspection for the grant of three star classification for his hotel Kalyan Residency, which is placed on record as Ext.P2 along with I.A.No.11787 of 2018.
4th respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, contending that, the said respondent has been granted FL-1 licence in respect of its shop in the building in question, since the said premises meets the statutory requirements as per the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules. When, the said FL-1 shop is being
conducted on the strength of a valid licence issued by the competent authority, the petitioner
WP(C).No. 3015 of 2018
4
cannot demand that the said outlet should be
shifted from the aforesaid building.
permitted the opening of an FL-1 outlet in the nearby area.
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, this Court finds that opening of FL-1 outlet by the 4th respondent and also FL-11 licence obtained by the petitioner
WP(C).No. 3015 of 2018
5
are governed by the provisions of the Abkari Act
and the Rules made thereunder, including the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules. The petitioner could not point out any violation of the statutory provisions in the matter of grant of FL-1 license to the outlet of the 4th respondent in the building in question. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take steps to prevent the 4th respondent from conducting its FL-1 outlet in the building in question. If the functioning of FL-1 outlet of the 4th respondent is causing threat to public peace and morality, the petitioner can bring it to the notice of the statutory authorities. (See: Ganapathy Iyer and others v. State of Kerala and Others [2018(2) KHC 698] . In such circumstances, I find absolutely no grounds to grant the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
WP(C).No. 3015 of 2018
6
In the result, this writ petition fails and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
WP(C).No. 3015 of 2018
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.3.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CONDUCTING FRESH INSPECTION FOR THE GRANT OF 3 STAR CLASSIFICATION.
AV/29/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to prevent an FL-1 licensee from conducting business in a building where the petitioner holds an FL-11 licence.
Whether the petitioner can demonstrate any violation of statutory provisions regarding the grant of the FL-1 license to the respondent outlet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganapathy Iyer and others v. State of Kerala and OthersReferred¶43
Ganapathy Iyer and others v. State of Kerala and Others [2018(2) KHC 698]
PRIYESH KUMAR P
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES
EXCISE COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE
DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
