IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14060 of 2010(F)
1. ANILKUMAR, S/O. SASIDHARAN,
... Petitioner
2. UDAYAKUMAR, S/O. VIKRAMAN PANICKER,
Vs
1. DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :09/06/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 14060 OF 2010-F
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was granted permission to conduct the 2nd Group
toddy shop of Kilimanoor Excise Range for the year 2010-2011. There are
five toddy shops in the group. The licence was granted to toddy shop
Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 for shop No.9, the licence is yet to be issued. The
petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the first
respondent to issuethe licence in the present location.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating
that Noorul Islam Madrasa, Thaikkavu is functioning within 70 meters
from the gate of the toddy shop proposed to be licensed in favour of the
petitioner and the said site is objectionable as per Rule 7(2) of the Kerala
Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. It is pointed out that the said aspect
was the reason for not renewing the licence.
3. The statement shows that the shop was licenced since 1998-1999
and the Madrasa was functioning in that place since 1982. Going by the
second proviso to Rule 7(2), there is a provision to locate the shop in the
same place availing the benefit of exemption. The statement further
wpc 14060/2010 2
proceeds to state that it is up to the petitioner to find out an unobjectionable
site for obtaining the licence. Finally, in para 5 it is stated that if no
unobjectionable site is available within the scheduled premises, the
petitioner will get the benefit of the proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Rules.
4. The petitioner has filed I.A. No.7164/2010 producing Ext.P6. It is
pointed out that even though the petitioner made earnest efforts, no
unobjectionable site could be found out. Therefore, he seeks for the benefit
of second proviso to Rule 7(2), in Ext.P6 application.
5. Therefore, what is required is only to direct the first respondent to
consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders and to see whether the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the second proviso to Rule 7(2) of the
Rules. An appropriate decision will be taken and communicated to the
petitioner, after hearing him, within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the
judgment before the first respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/-