Kerala High Court
Hotel Sea Pearl vs State Of Kerala on 13 April, 2023
WP(C) No.14056/2023 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Thursday, the 13th day of April 2023 / 23rd Chaithra, 1945
WP(C) NO. 14056 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
HOTEL SEA PEARL, NTV NAGAR, KADAPAKKADA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER RENIN RAJ RESIDING AT GOWRI VIHAR, MAITHRI NAGAR, 7A,
KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691008
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BAKERY
JUNCTION ROAD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE,
EXCISE COMPLEX, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM , PIN - 691001
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA , PIN - 691013
5. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA , PIN - 691001
Writ Petition (Civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay the operation of Exhibit P2 order to the extent the same
affects the functioning Hotel Sea Pearl, Kadapakkada on 16/4/2023 in
connection with Kollam Pooram Mahotsavam at Asramam Sree Krishna Swamy
Temple, Kollam, during the pendency of the writ petition, for the fairplay
of justice.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S. THOMAS ABRAHAM, MERCIAMMA MATHEW, ASWIN.P.JOHN, R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN,
& PAUL BABY, Advocates for the petitioner, the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.14056/2023 2/5
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.14056 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2023
ORDER
I have heard Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that Ext.P2 order has been issued ordering the closure of the bar
run by the petitioner from 9 am onwards in connection with Kollam Pooram
Mahotsavam at Ashramam Sree Krishna Swami Temple. According to the
learned counsel, all that is mentioned is that quite a number of persons
would assemble in and around the Ashramam area and to ensure peace and
tranquility in the area, the bar hotels/toddy shops/liquor vending outlets are
to down their shutters. According to the learned counsel, a Division Bench
of this Court in Ext.P3, and P6 and P7 judgments has clearly observed that
liquor vending shops cannot be closed down in a casual manner by just
referring to festivals. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that Ext.P2
order does not disclose any cogent or convincing reason for interdicting the
operation of the bar hotel run by the petitioner. Finally, it is submitted that
the petitioner has invested huge amounts in running his business, and for
WP(C) No.14056/2023 3/5
W.P.(C) No. 14056 of 2023
reasons mentioned in Ext.P2, if the bar is closed down for even one day,
huge loss would be incurred.
3. The learned Government Pleader has opposed the submissions.
It is submitted that in the impugned order, the District Magistrate has taken
note of adverse reports received from the police. It was also noted that a
large number of pachyderms would assemble in connection with the festival
and a huge number of people are likely to visit the area. It is submitted that
this Court has clearly held that the District Magistrate need only to be
satisfied that such a prohibition is necessary for reserving public peace, and
even if there are no antecedents of a criminal case, it cannot be said that
the apprehension entertained by the District Collector is baseless. Reliance is
also placed on the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment dated 02.03.2023 in W.A No.489/2023 and connected cases.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced. I am of the
considered opinion that the order was passed reckoning all relevant aspects
and in the exercise of the powers conferred on the District Magistrate under
Section 34 of the Act. As held by this Court in Aneesh v. District
Collector (2012(2)KLT 91), the District Magistrate need only be satisfied
that such a prohibition is necessary for preserving public peace. Even if
WP(C) No.14056/2023 4/5
W.P.(C) No. 14056 of 2023
there was no antecedents of any criminal case or breach of peace during the
previous years or merely because no such incident had occurred during the
intervening days of the festival, it cannot be contended that the
apprehension of breach of the peace is baseless. When the apprehension is
supported by reports of competent authorities, the satisfaction regarding the
necessity for issuing such a direction for the preservation of peace cannot be
questioned. As held by the Division Bench, even though there could be
drunkenness and brawls, which are not associated with the consumption of
liquor, there would be sufficient mitigation and reduced instances if
proximate access to liquor is prohibited.
5. Having considered the materials on record, I am satisfied that
the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with Ext.P2
order. The prayer for interim relief is rejected.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
NS
WP(C) No.14056/2023 5/5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14056/2023
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCKLM/4777/2023-M5 DATED
4/4/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
