STATE OF KERALA Vs. MARY KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in the writ appeal is the State and its officials, including the District Collector, Pathanamthitta challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge staying Ext.P2 order in W.P(C) No.4147/2018. Ext.P2, passed by the District Collector directed closing down all establishments selling liquor and toddy within a radius of 1 Kilometer of the Maramon Convention. The petitioner in the writ petition challenged the order, on the ground that it is against the spirit of Ext.P3 judgment of a Division Bench as also against the clear guidelines laid down by the Government in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench as

(2.) The learned Senior Government Pleader, on behalf of the State submits that the order has been passed by the District Collector only since there is a large congregation of people belonging to a particular denomination of Christian religion, including women and children and unless the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited within 1 kilometer of the radius of such congregation, there could be disruption of law and order situation by reason of apprehended mischief and trouble created on intoxication. This is more so since a massive inflow of people, including women and children are expected and if any mischief as apprehended is occasioned, the communal harmony prevailing in the State would be put to jeopardy. It is argued that when such a large religious convention is held, it is expedient that the abkari shops in the locality are closed down, during the said period. The order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 54 of the Kerala Abkari Act has to be sustained; is the specific contention raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would specifically point to the orders passed in the earlier years, produced as Ext.P8 series in W.P(C) No.4147/2018, which alone would indicate that the impugned order is a mechanical repetition of the very same reasoning in the earlier years and that too a verbatim reproduction. Such a mechanical order cannot not stand the test of the guidelines issued by the Government at Ext.P6, is the specific ground taken. The learned Counsel for the respondent would also contend that the respondent Bar hotel is the only one, which has been denied functioning for nine days, while others beyond a kilometer and even within the prohibited distance, on the other bank of the river is carried on. The prohibition brought about for nine days, applicable only to the respondent Bar hotel does not serve any purpose and does not prohibit the supply or use of liquor in the Convention area or the nearby precincts as it is freely available in the other parts of the State and even within the District. The confined and restrictive prohibition visits the respondent with prejudice, irreparably injury and violates the terms of the license granted by the State; which is after remittance of large amounts as license fees. There is no reasonable ground or apprehension based on which the District Magistrate has invoked Section 54 of the Abkari Act.