Disposed

Joseph M.C v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited

Kerala HC9 Feb 2022WP(C)/3234/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the shifting of a BEVCO outlet citing lack of infrastructure and proximity to schools. Court disposed of the petition by directing the Additional Excise Commissioner to consider the representation at first instance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional 4th Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after a hearing within two months.

Joseph M.C Vs Kerala State Beverages Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3234 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSEPH M.C, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, MUTTUMANA, PANAMARAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD-670 721.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA K.S.SREEREKHA NABIL KHADER

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2 THE MANAGER, BEVCO OUTLET, PANAMARAM P.O., WAYANAD, 670 721.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD.

¶13

ADDL.4 EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE COMMISSIONER OF KERALA, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033

¶14

(ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.02.2022 IN I.A.No.2 OF 2022)

¶15

SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1-2 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C)No.3234/2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2022

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved by the shifting of the

¶22

BEVCO Outlet from Panamaram to Kottakunnu.

¶23

The petitioner would state that the BEVCO Outlet is being shifted to a thickly populated area and there is no sufficient infrastructure to house the liquor outlet. The proposed Outlet is situated very close to a School and religious institutions. The petitioner and other residents have filed Exts.P2 and P3 complaints before respondents 2 and 3 requesting to take appropriate action to stop the functioning of the BEVCO Outlet at the present site. No action has been taken thereon. It is in such circumstances

¶24

that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

WP(C)No.3234/2022

¶26

¶27

When this writ petition came up for hearing today,

¶28

the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the additional 4^th respondent and the petitioner will be satisfied for the time being, if the representation is considered by the additional 4^th respondent.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

As the petitioner has already raised his grievance before the additional 4^th respondent in the matter of shifting of the BEVCO Outlet from Panamaram to Kottakunnu, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met, if the additional 4^th respondent is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner, at the first instance.

¶31

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the additional 4^th respondent to consider Ext.P4

¶32

¶33

¶34

representation submitted by the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as

¶35

respondents 1 and 2, within a period of two months.

¶36

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3234/2022

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

Exhibit P1	THE PHOTOGRAPH S	HOWI	NG THE	HUGE CROWD
	IN FRONT OF TH	E P	RESENT	LY SHIFTED
	OUTLET AND THE CAUSED THEREIN.	LAW	AND OR	DER ISSUED
Exhibit P2	THE COPY	OF	THE	WRITTEN
	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE	DA THE	TED 2ND RE	14.12.2021 SPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	THE COPY	OF	THE	WRITTEN
	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE	DA THE	TED 3RD RE	14.12.2021 SPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	THE COPY OF	THE	REP	RESENTATION
	SUBMITTED BY TH	E P	ETITIO	NER BEFORE
	THE EXCISE 03.02.2022.	COM	MISSION	ER DATED

Joseph M.C v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph M.C v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited

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

Kripa Charitable Society Vs District Social Justice Officer

Muraleedharan Pillai Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Sherly Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)

Purathur Maveli Store Samrashana Samathi Purathur Represented by Its Convener Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Principal Secretary

Alias K Kuriakose, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Kjv Alloy Conductors Pvt. Ltd, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.