GEORGE MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the licensee of Toddy Shop No. 17 of Group No. IV of Kothamangalam Range. Toddy Shop No.17 is functioning in Building Nos. 11/168, 168A and 169 of Pindimana Grama Panchayat. The building was jointly owned by the petitioner, his brother late Binu and the respondents 4 and 5. After the death of late Binu, his wife 'Saramma Binu" and the respondents 4 and 5 have jointly gave Ext.P1 consent, to the petitioner to conduct the toddy shop in the building for the year 2014 -2017. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 consent, the petitioner is entitled to conduct toddy shop in the building till 31.3.2017. While so, the 3rd respondent purchased the right of the petitioner and the legal heirs of the late Binu in the building and now the respondents 3 to 5 are the co -owners of the building. The 3rd respondent raised objection before the 2nd respondent against the conduct of toddy shop in the said building. Consequently, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 letter rejecting the renewal of the licence of the toddy shop. The petitioner submits that since all the co -owners of the property had already grant consent to conduct the toddy shop till 31.3.2017, the rejection of renewal of licence on the basis of the objection raised by one of the co -owners of the property is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. It is with this grievance, this Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to quash Ext. P2 and direct the 2nd respondent to renew the licence of the petitioner to conduct the toddy shop.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent, as lessor, has every right to determine the lease, at any time, as the lease is a consent to enjoy the property only. The learned Government Pleader drew my attention to Rule 7 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules') and submits that Ext.P2 order was passed in compliance with the direction in proviso to sub -rule (4) of the said the Rule.