IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 982 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
Vs
1. C.N.CHANDRA BANU, S/O.C.K.NARAYANAN,
... Respondent
2. K.P.SHAJI, S/O.PODIYAN,
3. RAJENDRAN E.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :27/05/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No1004 of 2008 &
W.A.No.982 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 27th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The State being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.10734 of 2008 and 11541 of 2008 dated 10th April, 2008
is before us in these writ appeals.
2. There was dispute between Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran, wife of
Bhaskaran who is one of the legal representatives of late Madhavan, who was
the holder of a licence under the provisions of the Abkari Act along with
respondents 2 to 4 for certain toddy shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise
Range.
3. After the death of Madhavan, Ext.P1 (joint application) came to be
filed by Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and other legal heirs before the Commissioner
of Excise for endorsing the name of Vilasini Bhaskaran in the licence. That
application came to be rejected by the Commissioner of Excise on 25.3.2008,
even without notice to Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and others. Aggrieved by the
said action, Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and others were before this Court in the
aforesaid writ petitions.
4. The learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ petitions had
granted an interim order and thereby the licence was allowed to be continued
for vending the toddy shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise Range.
5. It appears that there was some sort of misunderstanding between
Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and the joint licensees who got the licence to vend the
toddy shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise Range for the excise year
W.A.Nos.1004 & 982 of 2008
2
2008-09. During the pendency of the writ petition there was an amicable
settlement between Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and other licensees. Since the
dispute was sorted out by Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and other joint licensees, the
learned Single Judge has thought it fit to direct the State to endorse the name
of Smt.Vilasini Bhaskaran and continue the licence that was granted for toddy
shops in Group I of Kanjirappally Excise Range in the name of Vilasini
Bhaskaran and others. Aggrieved by the consent order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the State has preferred these writ appeals.
6. Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the
State Government would submit that there is technical breach in complying with
sub-rule (18) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (‘the
Rules’ for short) by the licensees and therefore, the learned Single Judge was
not justified in passing the impugned orders.
7. Sri.C.C.Thomas, learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting
respondent in W.A.No.1004 of 2008 and Sri.M.Abdul Lathiff, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents in W.A.No.982 of 2008 would submit
that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is in no way affect the
interests of the State. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there is a
technical breach of sub-rule (18) of Rule 5 of the Rules in not informing the
Excise Commissioner within the time prescribed under the said sub-rule, since
it would not affect the interests of the State, the State ought not to have filed
any writ appeal before this Court.
8. It is not the case of the Revenue that by the impugned orders
passed by the learned Single Judge, it would affect the interests of the
Revenue in any manner whatsoever. At the most, if there is any technical
W.A.Nos.1004 & 982 of 2008
3
breach, that technical breach is condoned by the learned Single Judge while
passing the impugned order. Since the State is not affected by the impugned
orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that we need
not have to entertain these writ appeals and then take exception to the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. In view of the above, while rejecting the writ appeals filed by the
State Government, we only say that the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge need not be treated as precedent in any other case.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
JUDGE
vns/