Kerala High Court
Hycinth Hotels vs The Excise Commissioner on 18 September, 2015
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 35742 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
HYCINTH HOTELS,
(A UNIT OF P.R.T HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED),
THAMPANOOR ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR P.RAMASUBBU,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O R.PERUMAL.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695033.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES(A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT C.S.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 35742 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIVE STAR CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 18.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVT.OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF TOURISM, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED
28.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.3.2016 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC6-30750/2015/D.DIS.DATED
16.2.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC7-1066/2016 DATED
19.05.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 28.10.2016
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.V.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
WP.(C).No.35742 of 2016-P.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
Challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 revision invoking Rule 40 of the Foreign Liquor Rules before the Government. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter was taken up for admission, is for a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext.P6 revision.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P6 revision within two months from today, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //