Kerala High Court
Kerala State Beverages ... vs The Secretary, Elakunnappuzha ... on 1 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 21607 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21607 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LTD.
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY RAJESH.T.,
MANAGER, WARE HOUSE, COONDI, ALUVA.
BY ADVS.
N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SUJIN
SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)
SRI.NAVANEETH D.PAI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SECRETARY, ELAKUNNAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 503.
2 ELAKUNNAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 503, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY.
3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682
018.
WP(C) NO. 21607 OF 2020 2
4 THE SECRETARY, OCHANTHURUTH VETTUVA SABHA,
OCHANTHURUTH P.O., VALAPPU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682
508.
5 THE KENDRA SAMITHI,
NITHYA SAHAYA MATHA PALLI, OCHANTHURUTH P.O.,
VALAPPU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 508.
6 THE HEADMISTRESS,
CARMEL ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, OCHANTHURUTH P.O.,
VALAPPU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 508.
7 PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CARMEL ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, OCHANTHURUTH P.O.,
VALAPPU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 508.
8 K.G.MARTIN,
KARINGADU HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., VALAPPU,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 508.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.BENZIR
SHRI.K.B.GANGESH
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SHEEJA.C.S.,GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21607 OF 2020 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.21607 of 2020
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and
Marketing) Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram represented
by the Manager of the Corporation. According to the petitioner, on
account of the judgment of the Apex Court imposing certain
restrictions for the outlets and bar hotels regarding the distance
from the State and National Highway, the Corporation had to shift
the outlet at Cherayi to a place within the same Taluk. The
Corporation was having an outlet at Cherayi and the same was
functioning from 01.04.2016. The Corporation found out a
convenient building in Elakunnapuzha Panchayat in Ward No.22,
Building No.704, which is away from the State Highway namely
Vypin - Pallippuram Road, and was suitable, going by the
specifications prescribed by the Abkari Act and the Rules framed
thereunder. Based on the application submitted by the petitioner,
the Deputy Commissioner of Excise accorded sanction to shift the
outlet from the existing site at Cherayi to Elakunnappuzha Grama
Panchayat. Ext.P1 is the proceedings. Based on the permission for
shifting, entries were also carried out in the licence by the 3 rd
respondent by renewing the licence for the period 2020-21 in the
new premises. Ext.P2 is the licence.
2. According to the petitioner, based on a complaint raised
by respondents 4 to 8 herein and at the instance of certain other Bar
owners in the locality to the effect that there is no permission to put
up the outlet at the site and further seeking to cancel the licence and
the order of shifting granted by the 2 nd respondent, the Deputy
Excise Commissioner immediately directed the Assistant Excise
Commissioner (Enforcement), Ernakulam to conduct physical
verification of the complaint and to report regarding the factual
position of the location of the outlet. Based on the said direction, the
Assistant Excise Commissioner (Enforcement), Ernakulam inspected
the present location of the building and after physical verification of
the same, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report on
16.09.2020. In the report, it is stated that he has personally
contacted persons who are residing near to the outlet and that there
was no objection from any quarters. Ext.P3 is the report. But,
however, the 1st respondent issued a communication dated
30.07.2020 directing to stop functioning of the outlet stating that no
permission is obtained from the Panchayat under the Kerala
Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trade
and Factory) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter mentioned as "the Rules").
Ext.P4 is the communication dated 30.07.2020. Thereafter Ext.P5
order is passed by the Panchayat refusing to grant licence.
Challenging Exts.P4 and P5, this writ petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2
justifying Exts.P4 and P5. The counsel who appeared for the
Panchayat raised a preliminary objection and argued that there is an
appellate remedy against Ext.P5 order passed by the Panchayat and
therefore, this writ petition itself is not maintainable. Several other
contentions were also raised in the counter affidavit.
4. The contesting respondent also filed a counter affidavit in
which they also narrated several contentions and submitted that the
writ petition may be dismissed.
5. Heard the senior counsel Sri.M.N. Sugunapalan for the
petitioner, Sri.P.M. Benzir for respondents 1 and 2, the Government
Pleader for the 3rd respondent and Sri.K.B.Ganesh for respondents 6
to 8.
6. The Senior Counsel Sri.M.N. Sugunapalan raised a legal
contention about the power of the Panchayath to issue Ext P5 order.
According to the senior counsel, Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act says that Village Panchayat shall notify that no place in the
Panchayat area shall be used for any purpose specified in the Rules
made in this behalf. The senior counsel contends that there is no
notification under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
Therefore Ext.P5 order passed by the Panchayat is without any
authority. The senior counsel submitted that Ext.P5 order is passed
without any legal sanction. In such circumstances, the senior counsel
submitted that, even if there is an appellate remedy, this Court is
justified in interfering with Ext P5 order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The senior counsel also relied on the judgment
of this Court in Pradeep M. and others v. Sub Inspector of
Police and Others [2019 (1) KHC 156].
7. The counsel for the Panchayat submitted that as per
Ext.R4(h) minutes of the Panchayat, it is clear that a notification
under Section 232 was published by the Panchayat. Therefore Ext.P5
order passed by the Panchayat is sustainable. The counsel submitted
that when there is a statutory remedy against Ext.P5 order, the writ
petition is not maintainable. The counsel takes me through
Exts.R1(a) to R1(c) complaints raised by the local residents. The
counsel submitted that the area where the proposed shop is going to
start is thickly populated. According to the counsel, there are two
scheduled caste colonies and a church situated within the prohibited
area as per the Rules. Therefore the present place is not suitable and
the Panchayat is justified in issuing Ext.P5 order. The counsel also
relied on a judgment of this Court in Action Council v. Benny
Abraham [2002 (2) KLT 228]. The counsel submitted that in similar
circumstances this Court justified the action of another Panchayat.
8. The contesting respondent also submitted that the writ
petition is not maintainable because Ext.P5 is an appealable order.
The counsel also submitted that an appeal was filed against Ext.P5
order and subsequently it was withdrawn. Ext.R4(g) is the order.
The counsel submitted that in such circumstances this Court may not
entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
9. The short point to be decided in this case is whether there
is a notification issued by the Panchayat in accordance to Sec.232 of
the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. For a better understanding of the
provision, Sec.232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is extracted
hereunder :
"232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a
license. - (1) The village panchayat may notify that no place in
the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes
specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which
in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or
dangerous to human life or health or property, without a
license issued by the Secretary and except in accordance with
the conditions specified in such licence:
Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the
expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication."
10. It is clear that, as per Sec.232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, the Village Panchayat has to notify that no place in the
Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the
rules made in this behalf being purposes, which in the opinion of the
Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or
health or property without a license issued by the Secretary. The
relevant rules are Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to dangerous
and offensive Trades and Factories) Rules,1996 (for short "Rules
1996"). According to the Panchayat, the petitioner has not obtained
a license as per the above Rules. The contention raised by the
petitioner is that there is no notification issued by the Panchayat
under Sec.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act and therefore, the Rules has
no application. The sum and substance of the argument is that no
license needs to be obtained from the Panchayat unless there is a
notification in accordance with Sec.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act.
The counsel for the Panchayat submitted that a notification is issued
by the Panchayat. The Panchayat produced Ext.R1(h) minutes dated
19.7.1996. It is a decision taken by the Grama Panchayat on that
day. The counsel relied decision No.18. For a better understanding,
decision No.18 is extracted hereunder :
"1996-ല ക രള പഞയത ര ജ (ആപൽകരവ അസഹവമ യ
വവസയങൾക വ പ രങൾക ല സൻസ നൽ ൽ) ചടങൾ
അനസര#ച ഈ പഞയത#ൽ 1-ആ പട# യ#ൽ പറയന ഇനങൾക
ത ല+ പറയ പ രമള ഫ0സ ന#രക ൾ ന#ശയ#കനത#ൽ ത0രമ ന#ച
ആയതനസര#ച ലപ തജനങലള 1.8.96 ത0യത# വച ഒര വ#ജപന മ
അറ#യ#കനത#ൽ ത0രമ ന#ക യ 1.4.96 മതൽ പസത ന#രക ൾ
പബ ത#ൽ വരതനത#ന ത0രമ ന#ച. ഇത#ക കവശമ യ
വ#ജപന പറല=ടവ#കനത#ന കവണ# ലസല@ടറ#ലയ
ചമത ല=ടത#."
11. A reading of the above minutes, it is clear that the
Panchayat decided to fix the fees for the items mentioned in
Schedule I of the Rules 1996. The first sentence is to the effect that
the Panchayat decided to fix fees for the items in Schedule I of 1996
Rules. In continuation of that sentence, it is stated that to inform the
public about the same, it is decided to publish notification. The
contention of the Panchayat is that the notification intended in the
second sentence of decision No.18 in Ext.R1 (h) is the notification as
per Sec.232(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. But the counsel
submitted that such a notification is not available in the Panchayat
records. The counsel also submitted that the notification was
published in the notice board at the relevant time. But in the
records, a copy of the notification is not seen. I cannot agree with
the contention of the Panchayat. We have to read the sentences in
decision No.18 of the Panchayat together. If we read the first and
second sentences together, it is clear that the notification is about
the fixing of the fee for the items in Schedule I in Rules, 1996. It is
not a notification under Sec.232(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
The Panchayat is not able to produce the notification also. The
Panchayat says that it is not seen in the records. I can't agree with
such submission from the Panchayat, especially when it is an
important document to be kept safely. According to me, a
presumption u/s.114(g) of the Evidence Act can be taken in such a
situation. If that is the case, it is clear that there is no notification
issued by the Panchayat under Sec.232(1) of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act. Then the decision of the Division Bench of this Court will
squarely apply. This Court considered this point in detail. In
Pradeep M and others v.Sub-Inspector of Police and others
[2019 (1) KHC 156], the relevant portion is extracted hereunder :
"11. Before we proceed to examine the various submissions
urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to take
note of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act,
1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.P.R. Act') which have a
bearing on the controversy. The issue involved in this writ
petition is as to whether the petitioner is required to take licence
as provided in the Panchayath Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous
and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules,1996 (Kerala)
(hereinafter referred to as 'the D&O Rules') from the respondent -
Grama Panchayath. The D&O Rules are issued by the
Government of Kerala by virtue of S.R.O.No. 76/96 in exercise of
the powers conferred by S.232, S.233 and S.234 of the K.P.R.Act
read with S.254 thereof. S.232(1) of the K.P.R.Act needs
reproduction in verbatim (infra).
"232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a
licence.-- (1) The Village Panchayat may notify that no
place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the
purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being
purposes which, in the opinion of Government, are likely
to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or
property, without a licence issued by the (Secretary) and
except in accordance with the conditions specified in
such licence:
Provided that no such notification shall take effect until
the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication."
12. To answer the point, we have to look at the wording of
S.232(1) of the K.P.R. Act. In our considered view, the language
of S.232(1) makes it clear that the Village Panchayath should
notify the purpose for which the licence as provided in the section
is required to be obtained.
13. In the decision reported in Bosco Antony v. State of Kerala
and Others, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"4. Heard learned counsel on both sides. As long as
Ext.P1 licence remains in force, the petitioner may be
entitled to run the shop, subject to satisfying the other
statutory requirements, if any. For running any business
included in Schedule I of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades
and Factories) Rules, 1996, licence under the said Rules
is required. "Abkari Shops Storing and Selling" is item
No.139 in Schedule I of the above said rules. So, the
petitioner is bound to take licence under the said Rules
for running the shop. But, learned counsel for the
petitioner pointed out that earlier there were express
provisions under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of S.232 of
the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, concerning grant of
permission for running toddy shops within the
jurisdiction of a Grama Panchayat. Since those
provisions were later deleted with effect from
24/03/1999, the learned counsel points out that the
above Rules insofar as they concern toddy shops, have
no efficacy. But we notice that even in the absence of
sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of S.232, the remaining
provisions contained in sub-section (1) of the said
section of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act support the
inclusion of abkari shops under the Schedule to the
Rules. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is plainly untenable. So even though
the petitioner has got Ext.P1 licence, he can run the
toddy shop in the Panchayat area only after getting
licence under the above said rules from the said
Panchayat."
This Court held that even in the absence of sub-sections (3) and
(4) of S.232, the remaining provision contained in sub-section (1)
of S.232 of the K.P.R. Act supports the inclusion of abkari shops
under the schedule of the Rules.
14. In the decision reported in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P)
Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Kerala, 2011 (2) KHC 171 : 2011 (2) KLT
516 : 2011 (2) KLJ 335 a Division Bench of this Court held as
follows:
"41. Government have framed the Panchayath Raj
(Licencing of Dangerous Trades) Rules, 1996. As per
S.232, it is for the local body to notify that a particular
activity is offensive or dangerous to human health or
property and in such a case, without licence from the
Executive Authority, no person can use any area for
such purposes as are notified, without licence."
15. Respondents - Panchayath do not have a case that the
requisite notification as contemplated under S.232 of the K.P.R.
Act was issued. In our view, it is the primary duty, rather than
statutory duty, of the Panchayath to maintain and give preference
to the will of the people. It is submitted across the Bar that no
such notification was issued by the Panchayath so far. In the
absence of Notification under S.232(1) of the K.P.R. Act, the
Panchayaths have no right to contend that the permission from
the local authority is required to commence toddy shop.
16. So far as S.232 of the K.P.R. Act is concerned, it is feasible
to refer to the law laid down in a decision reported in Poulose v.
Kappur Grama Panchayat, 2015 KHC 290 : 2015 (2) KLT 165 :
ILR 2015 (2) Ker. 381 and the unreported decision in WP(C) No.
39423 of 2015 wherein the principles in Paulose' case (supra)
were reiterated by this Court.
17. In Paulose's case (supra), it was held that S.232 only enables
the Grama Panchayath to act on the notification of the
Government in terms of R.3 of the D&O Rules, regarding the
dangerous and offensive trades and then further notify within the
limits of Panchayat, any areas where any specific trade or activity
to be carried on only with prior permission or licence. In WP(C)
NO. 39423/2015, this Court followed the dictum in Paulose' case
(supra) and held that Statute assigns the duty of notifying the
trade to the Government and that of the area to the Grama
Panchayath. The Court reiterated the principle, which would help
in testing the rules, adding that mere fact that a trade or activity
is included under the rules framed by the Government would not
enable the Panchayath to insist on a D&O licence for carrying on
the trade or activity.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rajit in WP(C) No.
31378 of 2018 submitted that it is the duty of the Court to
maintain and give preference to the welfare of the people of the
locality, keeping in view of the safety and the morality of the
people at large. According to the learned counsel, the licence
applied before the Excise Official for the toddy shop bearing Door
No.X / 553 has absolutely no facilities for starting a toddy shop.
More over, the learned counsel submits, the present building has
extended into the puramboke land by encroaching upon the same
and the existing old building is lying in a dilapidated condition.
True, pointing out all these anomalies, the local people filed
representations before the Panchayath. The Secretary of
Chalissery Grama Panchayat filed a counter affidavit before this
Court admitting the receipt of the complaints from the local
people. The Panchayath has already initiated proceedings as per
Ext.R5(a) and Ext.R5(b) directing the petitioner to demolish
unauthorised constructions made by them without obtaining
requisite permission from the local authority. As per the scheme
of the Panchayath Raj Act, the Panchayath is competent to take
appropriate action in the interest of general public prohibiting
unauthorised construction within the Panchayath. Such
restriction is essentially regulatory in nature and it has no nexus
or connection with the licence to run the toddy shop in the
Panchayath area, as long as the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and
Abkari Rules do not prohibit such a course
19. Taking note of the D&O Rules, we have to examine the
question as to whether it is for the local authority to notify that a
particular activity is offensive or dangerous to human health or
property and in such a case, without licence from the executive
authority, no person can use any area for such purposes as are
notified without licence. According to the learned counsel, Sri.
Rajit, as per the Schedule in accordance with R.3 of the D & O
Rules, item No.139 is 'Abkari Shops - Storing and selling'. Having
examined the Rule, it is true that the words 'offensive or
dangerous to human life, health or property' must be construed in
public interest. No doubt, the words 'ensure the safety and
welfare of public at large' is designed to ensure the safety and
welfare of the general public. As per S.232 of the K.P.R Act, it is
for the local authority to notify that a particular activity is
offensive and dangerous to human health or property. So far as
S.232 of the K.P.R. Act is concerned, that the Village Panchayath
may notify that no place in the Panchayath area shall be used for
any of the purposes specified in the D & O Rules, which in the
opinion of the Government are likely to be offensive or dangerous
to human life without a licence issued by the Secretary and
except in accordance with the conditions specified in such
licence. The word 'may' under S.232 imposes a discretion on the
Panchayath. Needless to say, the local authority may notify that a
particular activity is offensive or dangerous to human health or
property. Admittedly, such a notification has not been issued in
this case. Further, the words 'likely to be offensive or dangerous
to human life' indicate that absolute discretion is given to the
Panchayath to select the items contained in the Schedule of D&O
Rules after taking into consideration of the socio - economic
conditions prevailing in the Panchayath. Going by Schedule I, it is
clear that biscuits - baking, preparing, keeping, storing or selling
for human consumption other than for domestic use and bread -
baking, preparing, keeping, storing or selling for human
consumption other than for domestic use etc. are also found a
place in Schedule I of the D&O Rules. The above items are
unlikely to be offensive and dangerous to human life.
20. In our considered opinion, unless and until requisite
notification as contemplated under S.232(1) has been issued,
there is no need to obtain any licence from the Grama
Panchayath to run the toddy shop within its limits. We are of the
view that those Panchayaths, who find themselves unable to issue
requisite notification as contemplated under the Act and Rules,
are not justified in contending that the toddy shops are generally
a nuisance to the public at large. There is no legal prohibition for
a citizen to carry on toddy business unless it is prohibited in
accordance with law."
12. The Division Bench of this Court categorically stated that
in the absence of notification under Sec.232(1), the Panchayats have
no right to contend that permission from the local authority is
required to commence a toddy shop. If that is the case, no license is
necessary to the petitioner for shifting the FL-1 shops within the
jurisdiction of the Panchayat. If that is the case, according to me,
Ext.P5 order passed by the Panchayat is without authority. The
Panchayat has no authority to direct the petitioner to obtain a
license as per Rules, 1996, when there is no notification under
Sec.232(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Consequently, Ext.P5 will not
stand.
13. It is true that the counsel for the respondents submitted
that challenging Ext.P5, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
appellate authority and as per Ext.R1(g), the appeal was not pressed.
According to the counsel appearing for the Panchayat and the
contesting respondents, since the petitioner availed the statutory
remedy and the appeal is not pressed, the present writ petition is not
maintainable. On this point also, I am not in a position to accept the
contention of the respondents. It is settled by several decisions of
this Court and Apex Court that when an order of a statutory
authority is questioned on the ground that the same suffers from
lack of jurisdiction, alternative remedy may not be a bar to entertain
a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
(M/s.Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner (AA) and
another (AIR 2009 SC 2423), Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar, Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [(1998) 8 SCC 1]
and Committee of Management and anr. v. Vice Chancellor
and others [2008 (16) SCALE 310].
14. In the light of the fact that this Court already found that
there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction to the Panchayat to issue
Ext.P5 order, I think the other points raised by the Panchayat need
not be considered by this Court. The counsel for the Panchayat also
relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 25.10.2011
in Writ Appeal No. 628/2010. It is an unreported judgment. In that
judgment, the point considered is about the distance rule, which can
be considered by the Panchayat. Here is a case, where the petitioner
need not get a license from the Panchayat, in the light of the fact
that there is no notification under Sec.232(1) of the Panchayat Raj
Act. Therefore, according to me, that point also need not be
considered at this stage. The contesting respondents submitted that
the proposed site is very near to a church and two scheduled caste
colonies. According to me, that point is also considered in detail in
Ext.P3. The counsel for the Panchayat submitted that Ext.P3 is
challenged before this Court in a separate writ petition. Till Ext.P3 is
varied by this Court or any other statutory authorities, that will
stand. It is a proceedings of a statutory authority as per Rules. The
Assistant Excise Commissioner, (Enforcement), Ernakulam
considered the facts in detail in Ext. P3 and passed the order. I make
it clear that I considered Ext.P3 only to decide this writ petition. All
the contentions of the contesting respondents and the Panchayat
against the validity of Ext.P3 are left open.
In the light of the above facts, I think, the petitioner is entitled
the reliefs in this Writ Petition. Therefore, this writ petition is
allowed. Exts. P4 and P5 are set aside. No cost.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21607/2020
PETITIONER's EXTS.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.E4-
5532/2020 DATED 29.07.2020 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.09.2020 OF
THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 19.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 THE KERALA PANCHAYATH RAJ (ISSUE OF LICENSE
TO FACTORIES, TRADES ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ACTIVITIES AND OTHERS SERVICES) RULES,1996
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2019
(1) KLT 171
EXHIBIT P8
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/2/2021 OF
THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
RESPONDENTS EXTS:
EXHIBIT R5 A A SKETCH SHOWING THE ACTUAL DISTANCE OF
VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS FROM THE FOREIGN
LIQUOR OUTLET
EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA
DAILY DATED 1.8.2020 IN THIS REGARD
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
