T.K. ANEESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 1 to 3 are the licencees of toddy shops in Group No:13 of Cherthala Excise Range. Petitioners 4 and 5 are licencees in Group No: 14 of Cherthala Excise Range. They have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P11 order passed by the first respondent invoking the power under Section 54 of the Abkari Act ordering a ban on the sale of toddy within 2 km radius of St.Andrews Basilica , Arthunkal on 19.1.2013, 20.1.2013, 26.1.2013 and 27.1.2013. Consequently, the petitioners have been directed to keep their toddy shops closed during the festival days. This writ petition was admitted on 18-1-2013 and an interim stay of Ext.P11 in so far as it related to the ban on 19-1-2013 and 20-1-2013 was granted for the reason that the order was not issued in accordance with the circular issued by the sixth respondent for regulating the manner in which such orders are to be issued. It is a stipulation in Circular No: 7497/A2/09/TD dated 29.4.2009 that an order under Section 54 of the Abkari Act should be passed at least one week prior to the event in respect of which the same was issued, so as not to stifle the legal remedies available to those who are aggrieved by such orders. In view of the interim order of stay granted by this Court the toddy shops of the petitioners functioned on 19.1.2013 and 20.1.2013. What survives is only whether the ban on the sale of liquor on 26.1.2013 and 27.1.2013 should be permitted.

(2.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioners, the ban on the sale of toddy shops is confined to a radius of 2 kms. from the church within which distance, only the shops of the petitioners are situate. Outside the radius of 2 kms, there are bar attached hotels as well as FL 1 shops run by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, vending Indian made foreign liquor, without any restriction. For the above reason, it is contended that no purpose would be achieved by the ban on the sale of toddy alone, within a limited area. The petitioners also contend that no notice was served on them before issuing Ext.P11. Though such orders are passed every year during the festival of the church, it is contended that no law and order situation created by the consumption of liquor has been reported at any time. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the issue of orders setting aside Ext.P11 or an extension of the interim order of stay.

(3.) THE additional seventh respondent has got impleaded in this case. According to the counsel for the additional seventh respondent, Ext.P11 has been issued on the strength of material in the form of reports submitted by the competent authorities who have assessed the situation. Therefore, the counsel contends that the ban order on 26.1.2013 and 27.1.2013 may not be interfered with.