Kerala High Court
Kerala Catholic Bishops Council Madya ... vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2014
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
RP.No. 874 of 2014 (A)
--------------------------------
N WP(C) 22203/2014, DATED 30-10-2014
-----------------
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/4TH ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KERALA CATHOLIC BISHOPS COUNCIL MADYA VIRUDHA SAMITHI,
STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, POC, PALARIVATTOM
COCHIN, KERALA, 682025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SERETARY, FR. T.J. ANTONY
BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT 1-3 & PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
RERPESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TAXES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
3. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
ERNAKULAM DIVISION, BANERJEE ROAD, KOCHI 682031.
4. HOTEL AIRLINK CASTLE,
(A UNIT OF M/S SWAGATH ENTERPRISES),
NEAR COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ATHANI P.O,
NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683585,
REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING PARTNER
MR. DAVIS KURIAKOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O KURIAKOSE.
R1-3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN
R4 BY SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-12-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
RP.No. 874 of 2014 (A)
--------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
---------------------------------------
A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/10/14 IN WPC.NO.22203/14
A2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.24308/14
DATED 30/10/14
A3: COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.56/2014/TD DATED 2/4/14 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
A4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS)NO.139/2014/TD DATED
22/8/14
A4(A): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A4
A5: COPY OF GO(P) NO.141/2014/TD DATED 27/8/14 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
A6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/6/84 REPORTED IN (1984) KHC 414
A7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT, UPHOLDING THE POLICY DECISION OF PROHIBITION OF ARRACK IN
KERALA, REPORTED IN SUNNUY MARKOSE V STATE OF KERALA, REPORTED
IN (1996) KHC 156
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
-------------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
R.P.No.874 of 2014
in
W.P.(C).No.22203 of 2014
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2014
ORDER
The petitioner who was the additional fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.22202 of 2014 has filed this petition seeking a review of the judgment dated 30.10.2014 by which, a batch of writ petitions challenging the Abkari policy of the State Government 2014-15 were disposed of.
2. The contention of Sri.A.G.Basil, who appears for the petitioner is that, on the same day of pronouncement of the judgment sought to be reviewed, a Division Bench of this Court had passed Annexure-A2 judgment in a public interest litigation holding that it was for the Government to take a decision on policy matters and that this Court could not interfere in the matter or issue any direction. The counsel for the petitioner contends that, the above judgment of the Division Bench could not be brought to the notice of this Court because it was 2 R.P.No.874 of 2014 in W.P.(C).No.22203 of 2014 pronounced on the same day as the judgment sought to be reviewed and that, had the judgment been brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment sought to be reviewed would not have been passed.
3. Heard. A perusal of Annexure -A2 judgment shows that the same was filed by one P.D.Joseph seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to take steps to lower the rate of alcohol consumption in the State, thus slowly leading to total prohibition of alcohol consumption in the State.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to see that a ration level is fixed for providing liquor to those who needs it in ratio to their income stated in the BPL card which is used for availing benefits.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents and such authorities not to issue license or fresh license for starting wine shops toddy shops and beer parlor as these are also alcohol products which creates addiction and thus leads the youths to alcohol addicts."
4. The above reliefs are extracted in Annexure-A2 3 R.P.No.874 of 2014 in W.P.(C).No.22203 of 2014 judgment. The above reliefs show that, what the petitioner in the said writ petition had sought for was the issue of a direction, inter alia,
1. to take steps to lower the rate of alcohol consumption in the State, thus slowly leading to the total prohibition of alcohol consumption in the State,
2. issue of a direction to the respondents to see that a ration level is fixed for providing liquor to those who need it in ratio to their income and
3. issue of a direction not to issue license or fresh license for starting wine shops or toddy shops etc.
5. It was while considering the question of grant of the above reliefs that the Division Bench has observed as follows, in paragraph 7 of the judgment:
7. Having regard to the fact that the prayer sought for are with regard to policy matters to be framed by the Government, it is for the Government to take any such policy.
This Court cannot interfere in the matter or issue any direction.
6. It is worth noticing that neither the Abkari Policy 2014- 15 nor the consequential amendments made to the Foreign 4 R.P.No.874 of 2014 in W.P.(C).No.22203 of 2014 Liquor Rules were under challenge before the Division Bench in Annexure-A2 judgment. Therefore, even if Annexure-A2 judgment had been brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment sought to be reviewed would have been passed.
I do not find any grounds to admit this review petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The same is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.