Beena Kuamri K.V vs Kerala State Beverages ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21495 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 23240 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          BEENA KUAMRI K.V., AGED 61 YEARS
          W/O. LATE P.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KRISHNALAYAM,
          KOTHAVARA P.O., VAIKKOM, PIN-686607.

          JOY GEORGE
          TANYA JOY
          VINO JOSE
          SAJNA T.UMMER
          PRAICY JOSEPH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD.,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEVCO TOWER,
          PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

    2     THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
          KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

    3     THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
          EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686002.

    4     THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION,
          FL-9 WAREHOUSE, SH MOUNT, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686016.

          SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC
          S.KANNAN. - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23240 OF 2021
                                2


                           JUDGMENT

This is a curious case where the owner of a building

challenges the order of the Excise Commissioner, namely

Ext.P3, directing the Kerala State Beverages Corporation

Ltd. (BEVCO), to shift their foreign liquor vending shop to

another place.

2. The petitioner says that the income from the

building, which she has leased out to the BEVCO, is her only

source of livelihood and therefore, that if the BEVCO is to

shift their business from it, she will be left without any other

income. She says that she has, therefore, approached the

Excise Commissioner through Ext.P4 and prays that the

same be directed to be taken up and disposed of; and that

until then, the shifting of the shop from her building by the

BEVCO be interdicted.

3. I have heard Sri.Joy George, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Sri.T.Naveen, learned standing counsel

appearing for the BEVCO and Sri.S.Kannan, learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. WP(C) NO. 23240 OF 2021

4. Sri.T.Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the

BEVCO, submitted that his client is now incapacitated from

continuing the liquor shop in the building in question on

account of Ext.P3 and therefore, that no further orders may

be issued against his client.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader,

Sri.S.Kannan, submitted that, in terms of the directions of

this Court in W.P.(C) No.12881/2017 as also in Ext.P2

judgment, the Excise Commissioner had caused an

inspection of the facilities with respect to the shop, to find

that it is woefully insufficient. He submitted that it is in such

circumstances that Ext.P3 has been issued and therefore

argued that the petitioner cannot challenge the same, since

she is only the building owner, who has absolutely no privity

with the Excise Commissioner or with any other official

Authority. He added that the petitioner cannot stand in the

way of the Excise Commissioner exercising his statutory

duties and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. In reply, Sri.Joy Goerge, learned counsel for the

petitioner, pointed out that Ext.P1 Lease Agreement was WP(C) NO. 23240 OF 2021

entered into by the BEVCO with his client much after the

judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12881/2017; and

therefore, that the finding of the Excise Commissioner, that

the infrastructural facilities therein are not adequate ,

cannot find favour. He then submitted that his client is

willing to provide all infrastructural facilities, as are

required under the various applicable Statutes; for which

purpose, he prayed liberty to approach Excise

Commissioner appositely.

7. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the

submissions of Sri.Joy George as afore because, as rightly

stated by Sri.S.Kannan, learned Senior Government

Pleader, the petitioner has no privity with the Excise

Commissioner or with any of the other official respondents.

She has only entered into Ext.P1 Lease Agreement with the

BEVCO and since the BEVCO has been now directed

through Ext.P3 to shift the shop by the Excise

Commissioner, in exercise of his statutory functions, the

only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the

BEVCO and to plead that they approach the Excise

Commissioner after ensuring all necessary infrastructural WP(C) NO. 23240 OF 2021

facilities in the shop. Apart from this, the petitioner cannot

invoke any other remedy, nor does she obtain the locus to

challenge Ext.P3.

Resultantly, I close this writ petition without any

orders; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to invoke

any other remedy, as she may be advised, against the

BEVCO, particularly with respect to Ext.P1 and its

termination, in terms of the applicable Laws and Statutes.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 23240 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23240/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 11.11.2020.

Exhibit P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2017 IN WP(C) 31795/17.

Exhibit P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER DATED 11.10.2021.

Exhibit P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.10.2021.