Kerala High Court
V.M.Sudheeran vs My Hindusthan Paints on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
RP NO. 850 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12881/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:
V.M.SUDHEERAN
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.V.S.MAMA, GRA-777, GOUREESAPATTOM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MY HINDUSTHAN PAINTS
KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR - 68001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
LINS V.BABU.
2 OMEGA DISTRIBUTORS
KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR - 68001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER, N.A.SUNNY.
3 TRICHUR TRADE CENTRE
KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR - 68001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER, BADARUDHEEN MOHAMMED.
4 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
5 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER
EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NADAVANAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
6 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR - 680 001.
7 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BRIDGES), THRISSUR - 680 001.
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
2
8 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD.
DISTRICT WAREHOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 680 001 REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
9 SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THRISSUR TOWN POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 001.
10 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
THRISSUR - 680 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T.NAVEEN.S.C AND SRI .SKANNAN G.P.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
3
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
RP NO. 860 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12881/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:
O.D.THOMAS
AGED 72 YEARS,S/O. DEVASIYA, OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, KOORACHUNDU PO,
KOZHIKODE - 673527.
BY ADV BLAZE K.JOSE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MY HINDUSTAN PAINTS KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR, LINS V. BABU
2 OMEGA DISTRIBUTORS, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGIING PARTNER, NA SUNNY
3 TRICHUR TRADE CENTRE, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER, BADARUDHEEN MOHAMMED.
4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695001
5 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KERALA - 695001
6 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE
COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR - 680001
7 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROAD AND BRIDGES),
TRISSUR - 680001
8 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LIMITED, DISTRICT
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
4
WAREHOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 680001, REPRESENTED BY THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
9 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRISSUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
TRISSUR - 680001
10 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 680001, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. KANNAN-G.P AND SRI.T NAVEEN-S.C.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
5
O R D E R
The petitioners in these applications, filed for review of the
judgment of this Court dated 05.07.2017, very interestingly, did not
oppose the directions therein, but are seeming to support.
2. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in R.P.No.850/2021 and Sri.Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel
appearing for the review petitioner in R.P.No.860/2021, submitted
that the proximate cause for their clients to have approached this
Court is because, under the guise of the directions in the judgment
sought to be reviewed, the Exercise Commissioner and the State of
Kerala are adopting a Policy which will lead to larger number of
liquor outlets being opened in Kerala, thus causing cataclysmic
havoc to its citizenry.
3. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, further argued that when the State
was in lockdown, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions
and when every liquor outlet remained closed, the condition of its
citizens were far better, with drunken revelry being unreported, the
number of Crimes attenuating; and general law, order and peace
being restored. He submitted that his client has, in fact, challenged
the present liquor Policy of the Government of Kerala in a writ
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
petition which was filed in the year 2017, and that the same is still
pending before this Court.
4. As far as Sri.Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel for the
petitioner in R.P.No.860/2021 is concerned, he made similar
arguments as Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, but accused the Government of
misinterpreting and misusing the observations and directions of this
Court in judgment sought to be reviewed, to push forward their
design of effacing the concept of prohibition and to fill the State
with innumerable liquor outlets. He argued that, it is evident from
the judgment sought to be reviewed that this Court intended no
such, except that the collective dignity of the citizens of this State
be protected from the unseemingly long queues in front of liquor
outlets; and that, therefore, to avoid this, the Government is
expected to take other necessary measures, rather than increase the
number of liquor outlets.
5. Sri.Ranjith Thamban, learned Senior Counsel, instructed
by Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State
Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd.,
(BEVCO), submitted that these review petitions are not maintainable
because, no additional outlet has yet been begun, though certain
recommendations have been made by the Exercise Commissioner on
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
his client's request. He submitted that, in any event of the matter,
his client has not made any such request to the Exercise
Commissioner based on the directions of this Court, but as an
independent measure, since they are convinced that unless the
number of outlets are increased, the rush in the present ones cannot
be reduced.
6. Sri.S.Kannan, learned Government Pleader, adopted the
submissions of Sri.Ranjith Thamban, learned Senior Counsel, as
afore, and added that it is for the Government to take a Policy
decision on reducing or enhancing the number of liquor outlets in
the State, or even to accept the Policy of prohibition; and that the
petitioners cannot force this Court, in an oblique manner through
these review petitions - which are in any case not maintainable, to
interfere with such decision making process. He then added that,
these review petitions are incompetent, much less being totally
non-maintainable, since they are not assailing the judgment of this
Court, but are trying to supplement in an indirect manner.
7. I have considered the afore submissions with great
amount of thought.
8. There can be no doubt that the review petitioners can
obtain any cause to approach this Court in this manner only if they
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
are able to establish that the directions in the judgment enable the
Government, the BEVCO or any other Authority, to increase the
liquor outlets in any manner whatsoever.
9. On the contrary, it is admitted by both Sri.Kaleeswaram
Raj and Sri.Blaze K. Jose, that this Court has made no such
directions; but that their clients have approached this Court on an
apprehension that the judgment will be misused for the purpose of
advancing the Policy of starting new liquor outlets.
10. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore
submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioners
because, merely on the speculative apprehension of an
attempt/potential to misinterpret or misuse a judgment, review
petitions cannot be maintained; and in any case, as I have already
said above, this Court has not permitted or restricted the
Government from taking any Policy decision; but the resolve of this
Court is only to ensure that the long and tenuous queues found in
front of the liquor shops are effaced, by making the existing outlets
necessary walk-in facilities.
11. Before I part, I must also say, as this Court has been
saying when the connected Contempt Case was being considered,
that there is a larger interest in the mind of this Court, namely that
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
the next generation is not polluted seeing such long queues in front
of liquor shops, which is an affront to the collective dignity of the
citizenry as a whole, and that the liberties and lives of the less
vulnerable - including the women and little ones - are not
prejudiced solely because a few citizens exercise their right to buy
liquor and to imbibe it. It is this resolve, which is guiding this Court
while passing orders in the connected Contempt Case; and
therefore, am of the firm view that this Court would not require any
assistance from any other source to firmly go on with the same.
In the afore circumstances and reiteratingly clarifying that any
Policy to be taken by the Government will have to be done
independently, without riding on the shoulders of this Court or
edificed on the directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed, I
close these review petitions without any further orders.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF RP 850/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.EXC/2729/2021 XCI
DATED 14/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER
PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COUNTERS IN
FOREIGN LIQUOR RETAIL OUTLETS.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE ONLINE VERSION OF
MATHRUBHUMI DATED 01/08/2021.
Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN THE NEW INDIAN
EXPRESS TITLED 'KERALA GOVERNMENT MULLS BEVCO OUTLETS
AT KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEXES'.
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF TO AVOID OVERCROWDING, KERALA TO OPEN
175 MORE LIQUOR OUTLETS' DATED 09/11/2021.
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE TITLED ' AVAILABILITY OF
ALCOHOL' AUTHORISED BY ESA OSTERBERG PUBLISHED IN THE
WEBSITE OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION AT
HTTPS://WWW.WHO.INT/ DATA/ASSETS/PDF
FILE/0011/191369/9-AVAILABILITY-OF-ALCOHOL.PDF.
Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/09/2021 TO THE
HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA HAS SENT BY THE
THIRD PARTY REVIEW PETITIONER.
RP NOs. 850 & 860 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF RP 860/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABKARI POLICY ORDER
NO.G.O(MS)NO.22/2020 DATED 27.02.2020.
Annexure 2 A COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.EXC/2729/2021 DCI
DATED 14.07.2021.
Annexure 3 A COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.EXC/4071/20217-XC3
DATED 03.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER.
Annexure 4 A COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF EXCISE DATED 18.11.2021.
