Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs R. Reghu on 18 March, 2016
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937
WA.No. 370 of 2016 () IN WP(C).13340/2012
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13340/2012 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1-4:
---------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES(A) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
KOLLAM.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------------
R. REGHU
PROPRIETOR, HOTEL REGENT LAKE PALACE, NEENDAKARA
KOLLAM DISTRICT
REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.P.JAYAKUMAR
S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI (LATE), JAYA NIVAS
ANCHUKALLUMMOODU, KOLLAM-692012.
R BY SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JJ
K. SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
-------------------------------
W. A. NO.370 OF 2016
----------------------------------
Dated this the 18th March, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Surendra Mohan, J.
The State is in appeal challenging the judgment dated 4.11.2015 of the learned Single Judge allowing WPC 13340/2012. The respondent was an applicant for the grant of an FL-3 licence for the abkari year 2011-12. The said application was however rejected. The respondent approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application. This Court directed as per judgment in writ appeal No:287/2012 to issue the licence. Accordingly an order was passed on 29.3.2012 sanctioning the issue of a licence to him. Finally, the licence was granted on 30.3.2012, a day before the last date of the Abkari year 2011-12. Though the respondent remitted the entire licence W.A.370/2016 2 fee on the said date, the licence was issued to him only on 31.3.2012. Thus, he was not able to conduct any business during the Abkari year 2011-12. Therefore, the respondent sought for adjustment of the amount paid towards the Abkari year 2012-13.
2. The claim of the respondent was disputed by the appellants herein by filing a counter affidavit. It was contended that, since the licence was issued for the Abkari year 2011-12 irrespective of whether the respondent had conducted his Bar or not the State was entitled to claim the licence fee for the entire year. The learned Single Judge after considering the respective contentions has allowed the claim of the respondent. The State is aggrieved by the saId judgment.
3. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, since the licence was granted during the course of the Abkari year 2011-12, the respondent was liable to remit the fee for the entire year. The fact that due to the formalities involved in W.A.370/2016 3 issuing the licence, substantial portion of the Abkari year had been taken up is, according to the learned Govt. Pleader not a ground to claim remission in payment of the licence fee. The learned Senior Counsel Shri. C.C.Thomas who appears for the respondent on the other hand submits that though the order sanctioning an FL-3 licence was issued on 30.3.2012, the same was issued to the respondent only on 31.3.2012. On 30.3.2012 itself, the entire licence fee was paid by the respondent. The licence itself was actually issued only thereafter on 31.3.2012. The abkari year had come to a close on 31.3.2012. Therefore, this is a case in which the respondent was not permitted to conduct his Bar for even one day during the previous Abkari year. It was considering the above aspects that the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition, according to the Senior Counsel.
4. Heard. We notice that though the application for FL- 3 licence was submitted on 24.3.2010, the same was rejected. It was only pursuant to a direction issued by this W.A.370/2016 4 Court on 24.2.2012 that the same was considered. It was thereafter that, the lcience was issued on 30.3.2012. In the process the respondent was denied the opportunity to conduct his Bar even for a single day during 2011-12. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the claim of the appellants that they are entitled to appropriate the licence fee for the entire year. Any permission for such appropriation would amount to unjust enrichment which cannot be permitted. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has considered the issue in the proper perspective. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This writ appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
Judge
jj /True copy/
W.A.370/2016 5