High Court Kerala High Court

G.Sudheesh Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 6 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
G.Sudheesh Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 6 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20522 of 2009(S)


1. G.SUDHEESH KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

5. ANILKUMAR,"BABA NILAYAM",

6. KOMALAN,S/O.CHANDRANANDAN,

7. RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.KRISHNAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :06/11/2009

 O R D E R
                 S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                               W.P.(C)No.20522 OF 2009
                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     Dated this the 6th day of November 2009

                                          JUDGMENT

A.K.BASHEER, J.

Petitioner claims that he is a public spirited citizen who has been fighting

against activities adversely affecting the public at large. The prayers in the

writ petition are extracted hereunder:

i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondents 1 to 4, not to permit functioning
of toddy shop no.3 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise range in the
present licensed premises (shed) in Sy No.232/1 of Thiruvallom
Village.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to inspect the premises where
toddy shop no 3 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise range is functioning
and to ascertain whether the said shop is situated within 400 meters
of Vengara devi temple, and if so to re-locate the said shop to
another un-objectionable site.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of
Ext.P1 complaint by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

2. We have perused the counter affidavits filed by respondents 4 to 7.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties also.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was brought to our notice

that toddy shop No.3 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range is being conducted

in an unauthorised building situated in Sy.No.232/1 of Thiruvallom village.

Respondent No.4, Secretary of the Corporation was therefore directed to take

appropriate action, if the said allegation was correct. Accordingly, an affidavit

has been filed by the Secretary of the Corporation stating that the

unauthorised construction made by respondents 5 to 7 has been demolished

W.P.(C)No.20522 OF 2009
:: 2 ::

after issuing a provisional as well as a final order as provided under Section

406 (1), (2) and (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. Copy of the final order

passed under Section 406 (3) of the Act is on record as Annexure A.

4. When this petition is taken up today for further consideration, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if

respondent No.2 is directed to take appropriate action in the matter after

considering Ext.P1 representation submitted by him. The only prayer is to

afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter before

any decision is taken. The above submission, in our view, is only just and

reasonable.

5. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to

respondent No.2 to take appropriate action in the matter, if found necessary,

after considering Ext.P1 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law.

Respondent No.2 shall afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and

respondents 4 to 8 to be heard before such a decision is taken. This shall be

done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

(S.R.BANNURMATH)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
jes