C.P.MAGGIE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are engaged in hotel and tourism business, in several places in Kerala, have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the refusal to withdraw the orders suspending the license issued to them under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) A crime was registered against petitioners 1 and 2 and the Manager of a Bank in connection with certain transactions with the bank. Petitioners 1 and 2, who are accused 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 17/2006 on the file of Special Judge (SPE/CBI) II, Ernakulam, were convicted as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 21.08.207, for offences punishable under Section 420 and 120B read with 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- or else to undergo S.I for a period of one year under Section 420 IPC. They are also sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 120 B r/w 420 IPC. According to the petitioners, the crime was registered against them on the basis of an audit objection raised against the sanctioning of a housing loan, which was already paid back within one year and the case was registered by the CBI on account of the disbursement of a commercial loan as a housing loan alleging that the bank sustained a loss of nearly Rs.50,000/-. The Branch Manager was also convicted as per Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioners filed Crl.Appeal No.781/2017 before this Court. As per Ext.P2 order dated 25.8.2017 in Crl.M.Appl.No.4583/2017, this Court suspended the execution of sentence against the petitioners. Thereafter, they filed Ext.P3 Crl.M.Appl.4779/2017 praying for suspending the execution of conviction. The Crl.M.Appl. was filed pointing out the disqualification incurred by them under Rule 13 A (4) of the Rules on account of the conviction and stating that suspending of sentence alone will not be sufficient for removing their disqualification. Thereupon this Court as per Ext.P4 order dt.13.10.2017 passed a detailed order suspending the conviction of the petitioners.

(3.) In the meanwhile, Ext.P5 order was passed on 27.9.2017 suspending the FL11 licence issued in the name of the firm represented by the Managing Director Smt.Maggie Davis, the 3rd petitioner. It was also informed that she will not be eligible to get refund of the proportionate licence fee. In that order it was stated that the 3rd petitioner is not eligible to hold any licence under sub rule 4 Rule 13(A) of the Rules. The licence was suspended in exercise of the powers under Section 27(c) of the Abkari Act. On 12.10.2017, Ext.P6 order was issued to petitioners 4 to 13, suspending their licences. Ext.P4 order was passed by this Court on 13.10.2017. The petitioner submit that they had sent a copy of the order by e-mail on 13.10.2017 itself and produced the order on 16.10.2017. But the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders on their request to withdraw the orders of suspension even then. The petitioners submit that there was never an occasion when such an attitude is adopted by the respondents even after conviction is suspended by this Court. It is under the above circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders Exts.P5 and P6. They have also prayed for a direction to the respondent to refund the licence fee in respect of petitioners 3 to 13.