Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.G.THOMAS, S/O.GEEVARGHESE versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.G.THOMAS, S/O.GEEVARGHESE v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WA No. 2428 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 270 (4 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2428 of 2006()

1. M.G.THOMAS, S/O.GEEVARGHESE,
... Petitioner

2. SARAMMA THOMAS, W/O.M.G.THOMAS,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

Dated :04/01/2007

O R D E R

(V.K.BALI, C.J. & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)

W.A.No. 2428 of 2006

Dated this the 4th day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

Ramachandran, J:

Although Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the issue agitated could be examined along with another writ appeal, namely W.A.No.1049 of 2005, on the submissions made, we do not think such a course may be prudent or necessary.

2. The appellant had mortgaged his properties to third parties, where they are conducting business on the basis of FL-3 licence issued under the Abkari Act. He has taken steps for redeeming the mortgage and had informed the authorities that his formal consent is not there for running the establishment, but such objections practically were ignored. In the meanwhile, he had come to know that the Government had amended the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, by introducing a proviso to Rule 7, whereby a grantee of privilege for sale of liquor should produce written consent from the owners of building, where the shop is proposed to be licensed. But this stipulation is there only in [WA No.2428 of 2006] respect of Toddy Shops and FL-1 outlets. According to the petitioner, this is discriminatory as there was no reason for excluding FL-3 licensees from the arrangements.

3. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition (W.P.(C).No.11796 of 2005) pointing out that being a policy decision, the court cannot make inroads so as to direct the Government to amend the rules. However, the counsel submits that this was not the request made, but the Government's attention alone had been invited to Ext.P3 representation submitted by him. If there was an omission, it would have been possible for the Government to consider it.

4. We agree with the stand of the learned single Judge, that in the matter of policy decisions relating to legislation, it may be inappropriate for any direction to be issued to the Government. However, as the appellant submits that he is exasperated, and possibly the Government may look into his grievances, we had suggested to the Government Pleader whether it will be possible for the Government to advise him of the decision vis-a-vis Ext.P3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the matter will be looked into appropriately and the appellant/petitioner advised of the stand of the Government without much delay. [WA No.2428 of 2006]

5. In the circumstances, we record the submission of the Government Pleader. The writ appeal is closed. Sd/- V.K.BALI (CHIEF JUSTICE) Sd/- M.RAMACHANDRAN

(JUDGE)

mks/ - True Copy - P.S. to Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.