JOSHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 6237/2018 whereby it was dismissed. The petitioner therein is the appellant. He filed the said Writ Petition seeking quashment of Ext. P7 order to the extent he was required thereunder to pay an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- viz., Rs. 20,00,000/- each for the induction of one Joseph Antony into the partnership in place of his father Sri. K.D. Antony, who was its Managing Partner, upon his death and also for allowing change in the name of the licensee in Ext. P2(C) viz., in the name of the appellant who was nominated as the Managing Partner of the firm upon the death of the existing licensee viz., the aforesaid Sri. K.D. Antony who represented the partnership firm in his capacity as its Managing Partner. He also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to run the Beer and Wine parlour covered by Ext. P2(C) licence, without insisting payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- as ordered under Ext. P7 and also to allow change of name of the licensee in Ext. P2(C) as sought for.

(2.) Sans elaboration the basic facts which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment is as follows:-

(3.) The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions in the light of various provisions under the Abkari Act, the Foreign Liquor Rules and also in the light of various decisions such as State of Kerala v. Cochin Gymkhana Club (2016 (3) KLT 55), State of Kerala and Ors. v. M/s. Panamoottil Investments and Ors. (2010 (1) KLT 557), V.M.G.R. Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2016 (4) KLT OnLine 2307) judgment dated 25.11.2016 in W.P.(C). No. 18873 of 2016), the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 897 of 2017 dated 6.6.2017 arising therefrom and also the decision in State of Kerala v. Radhakrishnan and Ors. (2010 (2) KLT 185). The learned Single Judge held that in view of the law laid down in the decisions referred (supra) and also the statutory provisions under Rule 19 of FL Rules, insistence for payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- each, for the aforesaid purposes, made as per Ext. P7 is perfectly legal and no interference with the order impugned is called for, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the petitioner filed the captioned appeal.