High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
K.G.SURESH KUMAR v. N.SUDHAKARAN and Ors - WA No. 850 of 2007  RD-KL 6716 (30 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWA No. 850 of 2007()
1. K.G.SURESH KUMAR
1. N.SUDHAKARAN & OTHERS
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
O R D E R
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AG. C.J. & M.N.KRISHNAN, J.WA. No. 850 of 2007
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J. Appellant is a third party to the order in RP. No. 134 of 2007. He is aggrieved by the order in RP. No.134 of 2007. The learned single Judge disposed of RP. Nos.122 & 134 of 2007 directing the Commissioner of Excise to recall or refuse to grant renewal of licences, if wrongly issued, as pointed out by the petitioners or if similar certificates produced by others are accepted and a direction was given to the Commissioner of Excise to accept the certificates produced by the petitioners and grant licence to them also.
2. Writ petition was preferred by the first respondent herein seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get FL-11 licence, beer/wine parlour, as per Ext.P1 application and for renewal for the subsequent years as per the policy for the respective years as well. Learned Government Pleader had pointed out that the necessity of producing the certificate of approval for the restaurant by the Classification and Approval Committee for Hotels and Restaurants under the Tourism Department of the Government of India or of the State Government. Government Pleader submitted that the review petitioner has already produced a letter of the Tourism Department which is not sufficient to renew the beer parlour WA. 850/07 licence. Learned single Judge therefore disposed of the writ petition stating that petitioners are free to make application for approval of the restaurant before the Classification and Approval Committee for Hotels and Restaurants under the State Tourism Department and if application is filed, they will conduct inspection, enquiry and take decision thereon within three weeks from the date of filing of the application.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not a party to RP. No.134/207 and the direction given in that R.P. may not bind him. We are of the view that since the appellant is not a party to RP. No. 134/07 the order may not bind him. But needless to say that the authority would act only in accordance with law. With the above observation writ appeal is disposed. K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, (Ag. Chief Justice)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.