Allowed

Hotel Souparnika v. the Excise Commissioner

Kerala HC1 Dec 2021WP(C)/19932/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the order renewing the foreign liquor licence in the names of the previous managing partners. The Court held that a mere change of managing partners without addition or deletion does not attract Rule 19(ii), requiring the fresh order to be passed for the new partners.

What did the court decide?

Ext P11 order dated 08.10.2021 is quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext P7 application for renewal in names of petitioners 2 and 3 within one month.

Hotel Souparnika Vs the Excise Commissioner — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19932 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 HOTEL SOUPARNIKA,PUNTHALATHAZHAM, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KILIKOLLOOR.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.MR.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR,KARANATE HOUSE, KOLAPRA, KUDAYATHOOR.P.O, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

2 K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O.MR.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, KARANATE HOUSE, KOLAPRA, KUDAYATHOOR.P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

3 T.BINDU, AGED 45 YEARS,W/O.MR.PRAKASH, "GAYATRI", KOLLANNOOR, EZHUKONE.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. M.NARENDRA KUMAR M.J.SAJITHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM-691001.

¶14

3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM-691001.

¶15

4 DEEPU CHACKO, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O CHACKO ANTONY, KINGANAMCHIRA HOUSE, P.C KAVALA, PAIPPAD,CHANGANACHERY, KOTTAYAM-686 537

¶16

5 USHA.S, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O ANIL KUMAR, ASHARI AZHIKATHU HOUSE, KILIKOLLUR P.O, KOLLAM-691004

¶17

BY ADVS.SRI. RAVI KRISHNAN SR. GP. SMT.MABLE C KURIAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C) NO.19932 of 2021

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The 1^st petitioner hotel held FL -3 and FL-11

¶23

licences. The hotel, property and the licences are the assets of a partnership firm constituted under Ext P1 partnership deed dated 29.10.2013. The firm was subsequently re-constituted. The re-constitution was recognised by the authorities pursuant to Ext P4 judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.22132 of 2013. Ext P5 is the order so passed by the authorities.

¶24

Originally, respondents 4 and 5 were the

¶25

managing partners and hence the licences were issued in their names. On 01.09.2021, Ext.P6 resolution was passed by the firm constituting petitioners 2 and 3 as the managing partners and further authorising them to seek for renewal of the licences. Pursuant thereto, Ext P7 application was submitted before the 2^nd respondent seeking renewal of FL-3 licence. Consequent on the delay in passing orders on Ext P7 application, the petitioners approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶26

W.P(C) NO.19932 of 2021

¶27

¶28

On 01.10.2021, this Court passed an interim

¶29

order directing payment of the necessary fee on the application to enable its consideration. Pending the writ petition, the 1^st respondent passed Ext P11, ordering renewal of the FL-3 licence, but in the name of respondents 4 and 5. Thereupon, the writ petition was amended. As per the amended writ petition, the petitioners seek for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext P7 application for renewal of licence and for quashing Ext P11 order.

¶30

Heard Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Ravikrishnan, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and the learned senior Government Pleader.

¶31

Though a dispute was attempted to be raised with regard to the signatures of the attendees / partners in Ext P6 resolution, the issue has been resolved by production of notarized affidavits executed by them before this Court. In terms of Ext.P6, the licence is liable to be renewed in the names of Petitioners 2 and 3.

¶32

W.P(C) NO.19932 of 2021

¶33

¶34

Consequent on the change of managing partners

¶35

without the prior permission of the Commissioner,

¶36

the petitioners are required to pay a fine of ` 3 lakhs in terms of Section 67(2) of the Abkari Act. Since there is no addition or deletion of partners and a resultant change in ownership, Rule 19(ii) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 is not attracted.

¶37

In the light of the afore facts, Ext P11

¶38

order is liable to be quashed and orders passed on Ext P7 application.

¶39

Accordingly, Ext P11 order dated 08.10.2021

¶40

is quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 shall consider Ext P7 application in the light of this judgment, and pass appropriate orders thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Let orders be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Writ petition is allowed as above.

¶42

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶43

vdv

¶44

W.P(C) NO.19932 of 2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 29.10.2013
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DATED 20.12.2017
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.09.2010 ISSUED BY VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.09.2013 IN WP(C)NO.22132 OF 2013
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.KLM 55/2013-14
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 01.09.2021 EVIDENCING PASSED BY THE PARTNERS.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.09.2021 TO RENEWAL OF FL-3 LICENCE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE FL-3 LICENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19 DATED 29.03.2018.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12	NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY PRAKASH DATED 10.11.2021.
Exhibit P13	NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY SONY THOMAS DATED 10.11.2021.
Exhibit P14	NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY BAIJU MATHEW DATED 10.11.2021.

Hotel Souparnika v. the Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Souparnika v. the Excise Commissioner

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

Gireesh Kumar Vs Anoop @ Manikandan

P.P.Ummerkutty, Vs D.Saju

M.Muhammed Kunhi Vs Roy Mathew

Rukiya Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Joy K.K., Vs the Edamalayar Service Co-Operative Bank

Shiju Vs State of Kerala