Kerala State Beverages ... vs The Secretary, Local Self ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 580 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
     FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 10796 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

          KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING &
          MARKETING)CORPORATION LTD.
          PB NO.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX,
          SASTHAMANGALAM PO, TRIVANDRUM 695 010,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER-C-2
          MR.G.MOHANAN

          BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, KERALA STATE BEV.CO.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SECRETARY,
          LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

    2     RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT COUNCIL
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          RAYAMANGALAM POM, KURUPPAMPADY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 545

    3     THE SECRETARY
          RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT ,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          RAYAMANGALAM PO, KURUPPAMPADY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 545

    4     ADDL.R4. M.I.VARGHESE
          AGED 62 YEARS
          S/O IYPE, MALIKUDY HOUSE, IRINGOLE PO.

    5     ADDL.R5.K.A.SUNNY
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O K.P ABRAHAM, KARIPRA, KURUPPAMPADY.

    6     ADDL.R6.MATHEW VARGHESE
          AGED 63 YEARS
          S/O P.VARKEY, MANNAKKATTUKUDY,
          KURUPPAMPADY PO.
 WP(C) NO. 10796 OF 2016
                                2


    7     ADDL.R7.PAUL THOMAS
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O THOMAS, PABRIKKARAN, IRINGOLE PO.

    8     ADDL.R8.M.C.VARUGHESE
          AGED 68 YEARS
          S/O CHACKO, MALIKKUDY, IRINGOLE PO.

    9     ADDL.R9.C.M.BABY
          AGED 56 YEARS
          S/O VARGHESE, OORAHAMKUDY HOUSE,
          RAYAMANGALAM PO, PERUMBAVOOR.

    10    ADDL.R10.M.P.VARGHESE
          AGED 72 YEARS
          S/O PAULOSE, MALIKKUDY, IRINGOLE PO.

          ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
          ORDER DATED 08.03.2017 IN IA NO.1420/2017 IN THE WP(C)

          BY ADVS.
          SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
          SRI.G.D.PANICKER
          SRI.N.RAJESH


          SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10796 OF 2016
                                       3




                             T.R.RAVI, J.
                      ----------------------------------------
                       WP(C) NO.10796 OF 2016
                     -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 14th day of January, 2022

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner had challenged Exts.P5, P6 and P7 in this

writ petition. By Exts.P5 and P6, the Panchayat had decided that

the retail outlet of the petitioner need not be allowed to function

in building No.377-A of Ward No.1 of the Panchayat since the

same was functioning without any necessary license. Ext.P7 is a

letter by which the above decision was communicated to the

petitioner. The petitioner has also made a prayer to consider the

trade license application submitted for the year 2016-2017

afresh. The second prayer is no longer relevant since the period

is already over. The petitioner has now filed IA No.1/2021

produced along with Ext.P12 which is an application for license

for the period 2021-2022 for starting the shop in the very same

building No.377- A, B of Ward No.1 The petitioner has also

placed a Division Bench judgment of this Court in WP(C)

No.28479/2021 wherein this Court had observed that the

building in which the petitioner intends to start the retail outlet WP(C) NO. 10796 OF 2016

is comprised in a property of 73 cents and that may be

convenient for the public who were coming to the outlet to park

their vehicles without much disturbance to the public. This Court

also recorded the submission of the counsel for the petitioner

that they would not start the shop without getting all clearances

from the respective statutory authorities.

In the above circumstances, interest of justice would suffice

if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3 rd

respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 application in

accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and the

additional respondents 4 to 10 within three weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If physical hearing is not

possible, the parties may be heard through virtual mode.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

sn WP(C) NO. 10796 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10796/2016

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE ISUED BY THE PANCHAYATH HAVING VALIDITY UPTO 31//3/2016

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE ISSED BY THE PANCHAYAT HAVING VALIDITY UPTO 31/3/2016

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E4-1067/16 DATED 24/2/2016

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A5-6654/16 DATED 2/3/2016

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF RESULUTIOJN NO.3(6) DATED 2/3/2016

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LETTER 2/3/2016 SERVED TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER CORPORATION

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE LICENCE APPLICATION DATED 11/3/2016

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 15/3/2016

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/10/2011 IN WA NO. 628/2010

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 4/7/2014 IN WPC NO. 9341/2014

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE CORPRATION FOR D&O LICENCE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE