Disposed

St. Josephs Girls Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2020WP(C)/17674/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed by a school opposing a liquor licence to a hotel near its premises, the High Court of Kerala set aside the commissioner's inaction. It directed the Excise Commissioner to put the petitioner and other complainants on notice and provide an opportunity of being heard before granting the licence.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Excise Commissioner to put petitioner and complainants on notice and give adequate opportunity before passing orders on the licence grant.

St. Josephs Girls Higher Secondary School Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.17674 OF 2020(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ST. JOSEPHS GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANGANASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SISTER LISAMMA VARGHESE.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.S.SREEDEV SHRI.AJAI JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2 EXCISE COMMISSIONER

¶12

EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,

¶13

NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

¶14

3 DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686002.

¶15

4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TOURISM, TEEN MURTI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110044.

¶16

5 CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD, PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

WP(C).No.17674 OF 2020(H) -2-

¶18

6 JOHN K.A. PROPRIETOR, M/S.J.K.HERITAGE, MARKET ROAD, VATTAPPALLY, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 101, RESIDING AT NO.9E, SFS KINGDOM APARTMENT, KRL ROAD, NEAR CHOICE SCHOOL, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 301.

¶19

R1 TO R3 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHEEJA C.S. R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.17674 of 2020

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2020

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard learned counsel Sri.S.Sreedev on behalf of the petitioner, Smt.Sheeja C.S., the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, on behalf of the 5^th respondent and learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.C.Thomas on behalf of the 6^th respondent.

¶26

The grievance as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the proposal to grant FL-11 licence to the sixth respondent for conducting a bear and wine parlour. The petitioner alleges that the parlour is sought to be established in a densely populated area with

¶27

a Girls Higher Secondary School, an Anganwadi, three Convents and an old Catholic Church nearby. The petitioner alleges that the establishment of Parlour will affect the safety and privacy of the nearby residents. The objections of the petitioner appear to be founded on Rule 39 of the Foreign

¶28

W.P.(C) No.17674 of 2020

¶29

:- 2 :-

¶30

Liquor Rules.

¶31

The petitioner had preferred a complaint before the Excise Commissioner against the grant of FL-11 licence to the sixth respondent at the premises in question. The complaint of the petitioner was looked into by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kottayam and submitted report which apparently is in favour of the sixth respondent. Ext.P5 is the communication given from the office of the Excise Commissioner intimating the petitioner regarding the report of the Deputy Excise Commissioner mentioned above, wherein the factual allegations raised by the petitioner have been reported against. The petitioner alleges that the factual findings therein are not correct.

¶32

The learned counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that the petitioner has a remedy to challenge Ext.P5 in Revision before the Government, under Rule 40 of the Foreign Liquor Rules 1953. However, as noticed above, Ext.P5 is only a communication given to the petitioner regarding the report of the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kottayam.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.17674 of 2020

¶34

:- 3 :-

¶35

It is not an order passed by the Excise Commissioner which could be subjected to Revision before the Government in terms of Rule 40.

¶36

In the above circumstances, it would be sufficient if the petitioner and the other complainants referred to in Ext.P5 are put on notice and heard by the Excise Commissioner before ordering grant of licence.

¶37

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to put on notice and give adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner and the other complainants referred to in Ext.P5, prior to passing orders on the application for grant of licence to the sixth respondent.

¶38

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

WP(C).No.17674 OF 2020(H)

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BUILDING BELONGING TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT AND THE ADJACENT HOUSES IN MYTHRI RESIDENTIAL COLONY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02/08/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04/06/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISMISSING EXT.P4 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT G.O.(P) NO.126/2017 TD DATED 25/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

St. Josephs Girls Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St. Josephs Girls Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

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

Gopakumar C.P Vs State of Kerala

Premkumar.v @ Premkumar Vijayan Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Nazeer a.M., Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Romeo Jacob Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

K.S.Balachandra Panicker Vs Chairman

Jayakumar B.Kurup Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)