T.O.ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The actual dispute dragged to the court by way of this writ petition is in fact a civil dispute between the writ petitioner and his brother. The dispute is concerning a license issued by the Excise Department in the name of the writ petitioner. His grievance is that while the license was in force, his brother, who was later 6th impleaded as the additional respondent, unlawfully brought some quantity of liquor there without his knowledge or consent, by making use of some resolution of the company in his name. The writ petitioner made a complaint before the Excise Circle Inspector, and accordingly, a search was made at the licensed premises on 30.11.2016, and some quantity of liquor was seized by the Excise Officials. As requested by the writ petitioner himself, claiming to be the licensee of the premises, the bar hotel was also sealed by the Excise Official. The petitioner's prayer here is to issue a writ of mandamus or direction to the Excise Officials to initiate appropriate action including criminal prosecution on the basis of the complaint made by him, as against his brother and others.

(2.) Much thought or probe is not required to find out the real truth, because, the real intent is revealed by the Ext.P7 complaint made by the writ petitioner before the Excise Circle Inspector wherein, he has strangely made a request to keep his own licensed premises sealed. The additional 6th respondent has filed

(3.) objection to the effect that by a resolution made by the Board of Directors of the Company, he was elected as the Managing Director, and the license was accordingly transferred in his name. According to him, he got the license transferred on 20.09.2017. Of course, it must be assumed that till then, the license was in the name of the writ petitioner. But the question is whether anybody else can be made liable, as the writ petitioner would demand, for having unauthorisedly brought any quantity of liquor at the licensed premises. If anybody has or had kept or stored any quantity of liquor there unauthorisedly, the primary liability and responsibility must be that of the licensee. When the writ petitioner claims that he was the licensee on the date of the search and seizure, the liability must be his under the law, if at all any quantity of liquor was unauthorisedly brought or kept there. Fortunately for him, the Excise Department has not initiated any action against him. His main prayer is to initiate prosecution against his own brother who is the additional 6 th respondent herein.