IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10047 of 2009(A)
1. A.K.SANTHA, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
4. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :31/03/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 10047 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 31st March, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the holder of a licence to run a FL-3 Bar. The
petitioner has been issued with Ext. P12 show cause notice directing
the petitioner to show cause why the licence issued to the petitioner
should not be cancelled as per Rule 26(b) of the Abkari Act. The
petitioner challenges that notice on the ground that it is vague and
also the allegations therein are not sustainable.
2. The learned Government Pleader points out that Ext. P12 is a
show cause notice and the petitioner can very well file a reply. In
answer to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out
that the period of licence expires today and in view of the show cause
notice, the 2nd respondent will not renew the licence and that is why
even though Ext. P12 is a show cause notice, he has come before this
Court challenging the same.
3. An impleading petition is filed by one Moothedath
Corporation who is allegedly the owner of the building, on the
ground that it is on their complaint that Ext. P12 show cause notice
has been issued, after conducting an enquiry on the same. They
would submit that lot of other irregularities are also there and
proceedings for eviction of the petitioner is in progress.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. There are two allegations in Ext. P 12, which are:
(i) Licensee of FL3 No. E74/EKLM Hotel Sayana,
Movattupuzha has made alterations/modifications in the licensed
premises without obtaining sanctioning from the Excise
Commissioner in this regard.
(ii) Licensee has made illegal transfer of exclusive privilege
of the FL3 license to her son by executing a document.”
As far as the first allegation is concerned, I am of opinion that the
W.P.C. No. 10047/2008. -: 2 :-
same is vague. Nobody could answer such an allegation without
knowing exactly what is the alleged alterations/modifications stated to
have been made by the petitioner. The petitioner categorically
asserts that no alterations/modifications have been made by the
petitioner and the Bar remains as it was in the plan approved by the
2nd respondent at the time of granting the licence. Regarding the
second allegation, the petitioner contends that in Ext. P13, which is
the alleged transfer deed, there is no transfer as alleged in Ext. P12.
Ext. P13 only says that after obtaining permission from the
departmental authorities, the petitioner’s son may seek transfer of
the licence in his favour. The petitioner would contend that that
would not constitute an illegal transfer of the licence in favour of the
petitioner’s son.
6. I am of opinion that the petitioner can file a reply to Ext. P12
and contest the allegations against her. But, I am of opinion that on
that ground, the licence cannot be refused to be renewed in so far as,
as on today, there is no finding against the petitioner and it would be
a travesty of justice if on such allegations which are yet to be proved
a running Bar should be stopped. As far as the contention of the party
who seeks themselves to be impleaded in this writ petition is
concerned, I am of opinion that their remedy lies elsewhere. In the
above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following
directions:
The petitioner shall file a reply to Ext. P12 within two weeks.
The 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass final orders after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, taking into
account all his contentions and specifically dealing with those
contentions by a reasoned and speaking order. As far as the renewal
W.P.C. No. 10047/2008. -: 3 :-
of licence is concerned, the same shall be renewed subject to final
orders to be passed on Ext. P12, if, otherwise, the petitioner is
entitled to such renewal.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.