The petitioner who was the additional fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.22202 of 2014 has filed this petition seeking a review of the judgment dated 30.10.2014 by which, a batch of writ petitions challenging the Abkari policy of the State Government 2014-15 were disposed of. 2. The contention of Sri.A.G.Basil, who appears for the petitioner is that, on the same day of pronouncement of the judgment sought to be reviewed, a Division Bench of this Court had passed Annexure-A2 judgment in a public interest litigation holding that it was for the Government to take a decision on policy matters and that this Court could not interfere in the matter or issue any direction. The counsel for the petitioner contends that, the above judgment of the Division Bench could not be brought to the notice of this Court because it was pronounced on the same day as the judgment sought to be reviewed and that, had the judgment been brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment sought to be reviewed would not have been passed.
3. Heard. A perusal of Annexure -A2 judgment shows that the same was filed by one P.D.Joseph seeking the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to take steps to lower the rate of alcohol consumption in the State, thus slowly leading to total prohibition of alcohol consumption in the State.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to see that a ration level is fixed for providing liquor to those who needs it in ratio to their income stated in the BPL card which is used for availing benefits.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents and such authorities not to issue license or fresh license for starting wine shops toddy shops and beer parlor as these are also alcohol products which creates addiction and thus leads the youths to alcohol addicts.”
4. The above reliefs are extracted in Annexure-A2 judgment. The above reliefs show that, what the petitioner in the said writ petition had sought for was the issue of a direction, inter alia,
1. to take steps to lower the rate of alcohol consumption in the State, thus slowly leading to the total prohibition of alcohol consumption in the State,
2. issue of a direction to the respondents to see that a ration level is fixed for providing liquor to those who need it in ratio to their income and
3. issue of a direction not to issue license or fresh license for starting wine shops or toddy shops etc.
5. It was while considering the question of grant of the above reliefs that the Division Bench has observed as follows, in paragraph 7 of the judgment:
7. Having regard to the fact that the prayer sought for are with regard to policy matters to be framed by the Government, it is for the Government to take any such policy. This Court cannot interfere in the matter or issue any direction.
6. It is worth noticing that neither the Abkari Policy 2014-
15 nor the consequential amendments made to the Foreign Liquor Rules were under challenge before the Division Bench in Annexure-A2 judgment. Therefore, even if Annexure-A2 judgment had been brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment sought to be reviewed would have been passed.
I do not find any grounds to admit this review petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The same is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.