THILAKAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. The respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are the following:

(2.) We heard Dr. K. P. Satheesan for the appellant. He submitted that the materials on record, including the pleadings of the contesting respondents in their counter affidavit, and Ext. R3(f) would show that the structure in question is only a Thycavu or a Niskara palli and not a Mosque. Therefore, the learned Judge went wrong in holding that it is a Mosque, it is submitted.

(3.) The definition of Mosque under R.2(1) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules reads as follows: