Kerala High Court
M/S. Hotel Surya vs Suresh P.K on 24 August, 2017
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/4TH KARTHIKA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1596 of 2017 (S)
------------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27739/2017 DATED 24-08-2017
---------------------
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
---------------------------------------------------
M/S. HOTEL SURYA,
PAITHOTHU ROAD, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, N.J.FRANCIS, AGED 45
YEARS, S/O. JOSE (LATE)
BY ADVS.SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C):
--------------------------------------------
SURESH P.K.,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. MANU
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 26-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
Con.Case(C).No. 1596 of 2017 (S)
--------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
--------------------
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES
------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2017 IN
WPC NO. 27739/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE-B PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 25.8.2017
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES
---------------------------------------
ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WINDOW IN THE WEBSITE
SERVICES KERALAEXCISE, GOV. IN " EVIDENCING THE
PROCESSING OF THE FL-3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE R1(B) ATRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WINDOW DISCERNIBLE TO THE
PETITION IN SERVICES KERALAEXCISE, GOV. IN " PERTAINING
TO ITS FL-3 APPLICATION
ANNEXURE R1(C) ATRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILED REASONS FOR
REJECTION OF THE FL-3 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER
AND WHICH WERE UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE"SERVICES,
KERAEXCISE, GOV. IN"
ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.10.2017
------------------- OF THE PETITIONER
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
sdr/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Cont. Case (C) No.1596 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2017
JUDGMENT
It is pointed out by the respondent in an affidavit filed before this Court that the application submitted by the petitioner in the contempt petition was online, and a reply was given online, refusing to renew FL-3 licence. It is also pointed out that, petitioner is entitled to receive a copy of the order passed online, however, the same was not availed by the petitioner. Annexure-R1(c) order is produced before me. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that, in an online application processed for the purpose of FL-3 and FL-11 licences, reply is given by online, and no other orders are passed.
2. Therefore, in my considered opinion, even though belatedly, an order is passed by the statutory authority. If aggrieved, the petitioner can challenge the same. It is also made clear by learned Senior Government Pleader that, no other orders are issued other than the online orders. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the online order can be Cont. Case (C) No.1596 of 2017 2 used by the petitioner.
3. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to undermine the prestige of this Court, in order to proceed in a contempt case. Therefore, the contempt of court case is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the online order passed by the authority.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE St/-
26.10.2017