Maramon Hotel And Resort Pvt. Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Excise
2022 Latest Caselaw 7736 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
  TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 20830 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            MARAMON HOTEL AND RESORT PVT. LTD.,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
            SUJITH SOMAN,
            MARAMON P. O.,
            PATHANAMTHITTA,
            PIN - 689 549.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI. P. MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
            SRI. K. SUDHINKUMAR
            SRI. S.K. ADHITHYAN
            SRI. SABU PULLAN
            SRI. GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
            SRI. K.P. SATHEESAN (SR.)


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
            OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
            PATHANAMTHITTA,
            PIN - 689 645.
    2       THE EXCISE INSPECTOR
            EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,
            THIRUVALLA,
            PATHANAMTHITTA,
            PIN - 689 101.

            SRI. V. K. SUNIL - SR. GP



     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   28.06.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022

                                2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is holding FL-3 licence No.PTA-

17/2021-22. The 2nd respondent inspected the

petitioner-hotel and its premises on 07.08.2021 and

freezed 96 cases of liquor and stored the same in

the store room of the hotel itself. Ext.P1 is the

inspection report prepared by the 2nd respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner

points out that in Ext.P1, no irregularities are noted

during inspection. It is also submitted that the

petitioner is not permitted to sell the liquor freezed

pursuant to Ext.P1 and due to efflux of time, the

liquor has become useless. Accordingly, the

petitioner has filed Exts.P2 and P3 representations

before the 1st respondent requesting either to give

credit note to the value of the liquor or to replace WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022

the same by new liquor. The grievance of the

petitioner is that the 1st respondent has not so far

responded to Exts.P2 and P3 representations. The

limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to

the 1st respondent to consider the said

representations.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for

the respondents.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and having regard to the submissions made across

the Bar, there will be a direction to the 1st

respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P3, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, this

Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022

of Exts.P2 and P3 pending before the 1st respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

direction.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

SPR WP(C).No.20830 OF 2022

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 07-08- 2021.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-10-2021.

EXHIBIT P2 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 03-05-2022.

EXHIBIT P3 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3.

     RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:     NIL.