PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 28136 of 2016 (S)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :-
-------------
1. M.I.VARGHESE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.IYPE
MALIKUDY HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O.
2. K.A.SUNNY, AGE3D 58 YEARS, S/O.K.P.ABRAHAM
KARIPRA, KURUPPAMPADY.
3. MATHEW VARGHESE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.P.VARKEY
MANNAKKATTUKUDY, KURUPPAMPADY P.O.
4. PAUL THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS
PABRIKKARAN, IRINGOLE P.O.
5. M.C.VARUGHESE, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO,
MALIKKUDY, IRINGOLE P.O.
6. C.M.DOBY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE
OORAHAMKUDY HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O.
PERUMBAVOOR.
7. M.P.VARGHESE, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE
MALIKKUDY, IRINGOLE P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.D.PANICKER
SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S) :-
-----------------
1. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.2266,
SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 010 REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGIONAL MANAGER C-2, MR.G.MOHANAN.
2. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
RAYAMANGALAM P.O., KURUPPAMPADY
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 545.
WP(C).No. 28136 of 2016
ADDL.3. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT No.3 VIDE ORDER
DATED 28.9.2016 IN I.A.13905/16.
ADDL.4. SMT.LETHA RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN N.K.,
NJALUPADY, IRINGOL, KURUPPAMPADY,
PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM DIST.
ADDL.5. RAJAN N.K., NJALUPADY, IRINGOL,
KURUPPAMPADY, PERUMBAVUR, ERNAKULAM DIST.
ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT Nos.4 AND 5
VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2016 IN I.A.No.14808/16.
ADDL.6. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.
IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT No.6
VIDE ORDER DATED 2.11.16 IN WP(C).
R1 BY SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC
R2 BY SRI.N.RAJESH
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
ADDL.R4 & R5 BY SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
SRI.N.K.KARNIS
ADDL.R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 28136 of 2016 (S)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-
-----------------------
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS TAKEN AT THE SITE REGARDING THE
PROTEST OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE LOCAL
RESIDENTS INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS.
EXT.P2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF EXT.P2.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LOCATION
AS WELL AS THE FUNCTIONING OF THE OUTLET.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE RAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYATH
DT.26-2-2016 TO THE BUILDING OWNERS.
EXT.P4(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE EXT.P4
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.2-3-2016 OF THE
RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXT.P5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE EXT.P5.
EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE EXCISE
COMMISSISSIONER.
EXT.P6(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXT.P6.
EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.8.2016.
EXT.P7 IS ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.9.2016 IN I.A.14590/16.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :-
---------------------------
EXT.R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE lICENCE ISSUED BY THE EXCISE
DEPARTMENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO CONDUCT THE FL1
SHOP DT.11.4.2016.
EXT.R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.3.2016 IN WPC
No.10796/2016 ISSUED THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.R1(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.9.2016 ISSUED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.No.14000/2016 IN WPC No.10796/2016.
WP(C).No. 28136 of 2016 (S)
----------------------------
EXT.R4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 9.10.2015.
EXT.R4(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P4 SUBMITTED BY
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DT.29.2.2016.
EXT.R4(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P7 SUBMITTED BY
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DT.29.8.2016.
EXT.R4(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 17.9.2016.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J
&
SATHISH NINAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.28136 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December 2016
J U D G M E N T
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, C.J
This public interest litigation is filed by the residents of
Kuruppampady within the area of Rayamangalam Grama
Panchayat, Ernakulam District.
According to the petitioners, the area in question is
purely a residential area and contiguous to the main road. The
people therein are industrious and most of the workers are
employed in and around Kuruppampady. Most of them are peace
loving and are co-operative for public cause.
There was an outlet of the Beverages Corporation (for
short, 'the Corporation') at Kuruppampady Junction in a rented
building owned by one Mrs.Mini Varghese. It seems that the rent
was not paid and hence, the landlord demanded the Corporation to
shift the outlet from the building in question. Consequently, the
Corporation shifted the outlet to a temporary shed owned by
Sri.Rajan and Smt.Rajan, Njalupadi veedu at Theater Canal
W.P.(C) No.28136 of 2016
-: 2 :-
Kavala. According to the petitioners, the shed is in the midst of
the residential area, wherein the petitioners and a number of
others are living peacefully. It is a common sight that a few
trouble mongers, after purchasing liquor, consume it at the road
and throw the bottles helter-skelter at the road to the dismay and
discomfort of the tourists and people walking through the road.
The serenity and the beauty of nature is lost because of the said
foreign liquor shop. There are two schools working in this area
with a number of students and the students going to the school
and coming back are using the road wherein the shop is situated.
Despite a number of dharnas and protest, the Corporation has not
chosen to shift the shop to any other unobjectionable place.
The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is
that the said shop is against the best interests of the public at
large. They made a number of representations, but the same are
not acceded to and hence, the writ petition is filed.
2. Smt.Jeena Joseph, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the writ petitioners submits that a direction may be issued to
the Corporation to shift the liquor shop to some other
unobjectionable place, inasmuch as the shop which is being run in
W.P.(C) No.28136 of 2016
-: 3 :-
the present location is causing nuisance to the people in that
locality. A lot of dirt is generated because of the drunkards
usually throwing empty bottles and other waste materials to the
nearby properties. Virtually, the hooligans are preventing the
people in the locality to enjoy life with their family members in
their home. They cannot even walk on the street in question. For
all these grounds, the learned counsel prays for allowing the writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Panchayat, supporting the case
of the writ petitioners, contends that the Panchayat has not issued
licence in favour of the Corporation and hence, it is not open for
the Corporation to run the said outlet.
4. Per contra, Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for
the Corporation, taking us to the provisions of the Kerala Abkari
Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 and Foreign Liquor Rules, submits
that the shop in question is situated in an unobjectionable place
and it is after obtaining due permission from the concerned
authorities to run the shop, the same is established. He submits
that though an application was filed by the Corporation for
establishing the liquor shop, the same was not considered
W.P.(C) No.28136 of 2016
-: 4 :-
deliberately. He further submits that the matter is pending
consideration in that regard before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10796
of 2016, wherein, an order of status quo is granted in favour of the
Corporation. Based on the said order, the Corporation is running
the shop in the premises in question. However, he denies the
submission made by the petitioners about the conduct of the
customers of the shop. It is also submitted that it is open for the
police to initiate action against such persons, who take law into
their own hands.
5. We have gone through the materials on record and are
satisfied that the liquor shop does not violate any of the rules
mentioned above. The only contention of the petitioners is that
the public at large are highly aggrieved by the establishment of
the shop in the premises in question, inasmuch as the behaviour of
the customers visiting the liquor shop cannot be tolerated by any
human being.
If any person misbehaves in the locality in whatsoever
manner, it is open for the residents of the Village or the affected
person to complaint to the police and the police will take action in
accordance with law.
W.P.(C) No.28136 of 2016
-: 5 :-
Since prima facie we are satisfied that the distance rule
etc. are complied with by the Corporation while establishing the
shop, no comment can be made at this stage, more particularly,
when the question regarding granting licence is pending
consideration in W.P.(C) No.10796 of 2016. However, it is
needless to observe that every person in the society should behave
properly and the customers of the Corporation have got no right to
create any law and order situation in the area in question. It is
the responsibility of the Corporation also to control its customers
if any problem is created by them. If the customers create
problems by throwing bottles etc. to the road, it is open for the
people in the locality to lodge complaint before the police, which
shall be seriously taken note of by the jurisdictional police and
necessary action shall be taken by them.
With these observations, this writ petition stands
disposed of. We clarify that any of the observations made during
the course of this judgment are deemed to have been made only
for the disposal of this writ petition. The said observations do not
influence the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.(C)
No.10796 of 2016 on merits, in accordance with law. All questions
W.P.(C) No.28136 of 2016
-: 6 :-
raised in the said writ petition are left open to be decided. It is
open for the petitioners to get themselves impleaded in W.P.(C)
No.10796 of 2016. In the mean while, it is open for the concerned
authorities to consider the request of the petitioners for shifting
the shop to any other unobjectionable place, keeping in mind the
interest of the public at large.
Sd/-
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Jvt/5.12.2016
