K C ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are in respect of starting of an outlet by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. in a Panchayat area and the consequential actions thereunder. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment.

(2.) W.P.(C) No.23538 of 2017 is filed by a few residents in Ward No.XVI of Paipra Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the Beverages Corporation has started the FL-1 outlet after securing orders from the Excise authorities by the side of a very narrow road, which is causing much difficulties to the petitioners, other residents and the road users. It is also contended that, the outlet is opened in a residential building bearing No.XVI/180 of Paipra Panchayat. It is further contended that, the conduct of a retail outlet in a residential building cannot be sustained under law, which fact is evident from the tax receipt. The building owner applied for renewing the permit for running a book stall, and on obtaining the same, the building was provided for starting the FL-1 outlet. The Panchayat ordered to close down the Beverages outlet, however, the Secretary who ordered the same was transferred immediately. The road in front of the building in question has only a width of 3 metres, and the customers arriving at the shop in their vehicles are creating a lot of nuisance during day and night, creating traffic congestion and other circumstances adverse to the residents of the locality. It is also contended that, the building is situated in a residential area and if the same is allowed to continue, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners and other residents. Even though petitioners have submitted Ext.P8 representation before the Commissioner of Excise, who has granted licence to the Corporation to carry on with the outlet, no action is initiated, which according to the petitioners, is due to the influence exerted by the Corporation authorities over the Excise Commissioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed by the 5 th respondent Panchayat, contending that the building was actually a residential one and on the change of occupancy sought for by the owner, in order to run a book stall, the nature of occupancy was changed and the owner was permitted to run a book stall. However, according to the Panchayat, the attempt of the owner of the building was a surreptitious one with the intention of providing the building for rent to the Corporation. It is also submitted that, complaints are received from various corners, alleging unhygienic circumstances and inconveniences, and blockage created on the road, consequent to the parking of vehicles by the customers visiting the outlet. That apart, it is stated that, the Panchayat Grama Sabha has taken a decision recommending to shift the shop to some other convenient place.