Kerala High Court
P.Dharmarajan vs The Excise Commissioner on 26 June, 2012
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/5TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 14869 of 2012 (G)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
P.DHARMARAJAN,
GANESH HOUSE, NADAMALIKA, MANNARKKAD AMSOM
MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER
EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
EXCISE ENFORCEMENT & NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUAD
PALAKKAD-678 001.
4. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING)
CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. MANAGER
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD.
PALAKKAD-678 001.
6. JACOB SEBASTIAN
S/O. K.J.SEBASTIAN, KANJIRAPPILLY BUNGALOW
KARIPPAPARAMBIL, ARAKURISSI AMSOM, DESOM
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 678.
7. THE VICAR
ST.JUDE MALANKARA CATHOLIC CHURCH
HOSPITAL JUNCTION, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PIN-678 678.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI
BY SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).14869/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER/REPORT DTD.6.4.2011 ALONG WITH THE SKETCH
PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE TRUSTEE,
ST.JUDE MALANKARA CATHOLIC CHURCH, MANNARKKAD.
EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.1.8.2008 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 6TH
AND 7TH RESPONDENTS.
EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
/true copy/
P.A. To Judge
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
........................................
W.P.(C).14869/2012
..............................................
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner of a building comprised in R.S.No.35/4J of Mannarkkad Village. There is an FL-1 shop of respondents 4 and 5 which is presently located in a building owned by the sixth respondent. Sixth respondent wanted the shop to be shifted. There upon, the petitioner offered his building.
2. Accordingly, the third respondent inspected the premises and made Ext.P1 report which shows that there is a road to the Church of which the seventh respondent is the Vicar and that the distance between the Church and that the shop building offered by the petitioner is only 65 meters. For that reason, by Ext.P4, the offer made by the petitioner was rejected. It is in such circumstances, petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 and to direct the third respondent to measure out the distance between the main entrance of the Church and the shop and to reconsider the matter.
W.P.(C).14869/12 2
3. Ext.P3 is an agreement between the sixth and seventh respondents on the basis of which the road to the Church was laid. The agreement is dated 1st August, 2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that the road was laid only to defeat the claim of the petitioner.
4. As far as Ext.P1 report is concerned, the fact that the distance between the Church and the shop building offered by the petitioner is only 65 meters if it is measured through the road passing through the property of the sixth respondent, it is not a matter of dispute. Petitioner contends that there is yet another road to the Church and if distance is measured through that road to the main entrance of the Church, the distance will be more than what is prescribed in the Abkari Act and the Rules.
5. However, a reading of Ext.P1 report indicates that the road in question is 12 feet wide and that most of the W.P.(C).14869/12 3 worshipers use this road for their access to the Church. Therefore, even if the Church has yet another road access, that does not persuade me to think that this road is unimportant for any reason or to eschew the distance now measured by the first respondent and to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ PA To Judge