IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1118 of 2009()
1. LALU.C.K,S/O.KESAVAN,CHERAI HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PARAMESWARAN,S/O.RAMAN,VETTIYATTIL HOUSE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :30/06/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 1118 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The additional 4th respondent in the Writ Petition has filed this Writ
Appeal. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein. He
was the licensee of Toddy Shop No. 89 of Group VII of Irinjalakuda
Excise Range. The building in relation to which licence was granted was
demolished for widening the National Highway. So, he shifted the toddy
shop to a nearby building. The same was objected by the additional 4th
respondent, the appellant herein. Upholding his objection, the Excise
Commissioner by Ext.P8 order refused to give permission to shift the shop
to the new building in the neighbourhood. It was preceded by Ext.P9 order
of the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Thrissur prohibiting the shifting of
the shop to the proposed new premises. Challenging Exts.P8 and P9, the
Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge quashed Exts.P8 and P9
orders and permitted the writ petitioner/first respondent to shift the toddy
W.A. NO. 1118/2009 2
shop to the new premises. Feeling aggrieved by the direction of the
learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed.
2. The first respondent is no longer the licensee of the toddy shop
concerned for the year 2009-2010. Therefore, on the strength of the
judgment under appeal, he cannot run the toddy shop. In view of the
subsequent developments, it is unnecessary to consider the validity of the
judgment under appeal. If the new contractor is proposing to start the
toddy shop in the premises where it was housed and run by the first
respondent, the appellant will be free to raise his objections. In that event,
he will not be bound by the findings in the judgment under appeal. In
other words, his contentions are left open.
Subject to the above observation, this Writ Appeal is closed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
W.A. NO. 1118/2009 3
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A. NO.1118/2009
JUDGMENT
30th June, 2009
W.A. NO. 1118/2009 4