Disposed

K.N. Nalini, v. the Secretary

Kerala HC14 Feb 2019WP(C)/3456/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed to restrain illegal construction of a toddy shop and to stop its operation. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the parties to consider an application regarding the objectionable distance under the Abkari Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with directions that the petitioners may approach the Excise authorities regarding objectionable distance, and all concerned shall be heard.

K.N. Nalini, Vs the Secretary — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3456 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 K.N. NALINI, AGED 70 YEARS W/O SUKUMARAN NAIR, KOZHIKKOTTU HOUSE, THRIKKALATHUR, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683541.

¶8

2 SARAMMA THOMAS, AGED 85 YEARS W/O THOMAS, MECHERIL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHUR, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE SECRETARY, PAIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEZHAKKAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.

¶14

4 THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661.

¶15

5 AKHIL, AGED 35 YEARS S/O KUNJIRAMAN, ALUNKAL VEEDU, THRIKKALATHUR, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.

¶16

WP(C).No. 3456 of 2019 2

¶17

6 SHELBIN JOHN MATHEW, T.S. NO.73/2017-18, THRIKKALATHUR, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.

¶18

7 DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNKUALM DISTRICT-686661.

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC

¶20

R2 TO 4,R7 - SMT RAJI.T.BHASKAR,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 3456 of 2019 3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-

¶25

i) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to stop all illegal temporary constructions by the 5^th respondent for conducting the toddy shop as per Exhibit P5 under the licence of the 6^th respondent.

¶26

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direciton and directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action on Exhibit P1, P2 and P3 and re-posses the land encroached by the 5^th respondent and to stop the running of the toddy shop.

¶27

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and directing the respondents 1 to 4 to restrain the 6^th respondent from conducting any liquor, Toddy and Beverage shop in the illegally constructed shed in the property of the 5^th respondent.

¶28

Basically the contention raised by the

¶29

petitioners in the writ petition and the application submitted before the Panchayath as well as the

¶30

Excise authority is that, consequent to the conduct of the toddy shop by the 6^th respondent in the

¶31

WP(C).No. 3456 of 2019 4

¶32

building of the 5^th respondent is causing public nuisance. However, the details of the nuisance that

¶33

is suffered by the petitioners or any one is not spelt out in any of the representations.

¶34

In that view of the matter, I am of the

¶35

considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions. If the petitioners have a case that the toddy shop is

¶36

functioning within the objectionable distance in contemplation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and any Rules constituted thereunder. The liberty is

¶37

left open to the petitioners to approach Excise authorities in accordance with law and if any such application is received, all concerned shall be heard, and the distance shall be measured in

¶38

accordance with law by the Excise authority,

¶39

providing notice to all concerned and finalise the proceedings.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C).No. 3456 of 2019 5

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 25.1.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 25.1.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 28.1.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 28.1.2019 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOARD PLACED IN THE BUILDING OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶49

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL

K.N. Nalini, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N. Nalini, v. the Secretary

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

Aseena, Vs Kanjoor Grama Panchayat

Marar Samajam Uppilakai Reg No.Ksr Ca 34/2014 Vs the District Collector

Balakrishnan Melekkalam, Vs Sreekrishnapuram Grama Panchayat

Mammathu Vs the Majeri Municipality

Manseera.P.P., Vs the State of Kerala

Kamarudheen a.v., Vs Kunnamkulam Municipality