The petitioner/Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing)Corporation Ltd, a Government owned company is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“i. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P6 notice of the 2nd respondent Municipality and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider and pass orders on the D & O trade licence application submitted by the petitioner evidenced by Exhibit P7 within a time frame fixed by the Hon'ble Court.
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent Municipality to keep in abeyance all further proceeding in pursuance to Exhibit P6 notice, pending decision of the D & O licence application submitted, evidenced by Exhibit P7;
iv) to issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”
2
2. The challenge is against Ext.P6 notice dated 02.08.2014 issued by the Local Authority, whereby the Foreign Liquor Retail Outlet run by the petitioner in the premise bearing No.XXV/675D has been ordered to be closed down stating that the same is being operated there without D& O licence.
3. The petitioner contends that the application for granting the licence was submitted in respect of the previous year as well, as borne by Ext.P5 in the prescribed form. It is stated that since the respondent Corporation did not accept Ext.P7 application, preferred by the petitioner in respect of the current year, the same was sent by registered post. It is because of coercive proceedings, that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has obtained consent of the landlord as borne by Ext.P3 and that the location of the outlet at the spot does not cause any hardship to the local public. The insinuation made against the petitioner with reference to the inconvenience and such other alleged nuisance, as given in Ext.P10, is far from the track of truth. It is also pointed out that originally, the Panchayat had not issued any licence under the belief that no 3 licence was required by virtue of nature of the establishment. But, by virtue of law declared by this Court in Noushad vs.Kayamkulam Municipality (2006(2) KLT 319), it became obligatory for the petitioner as well, to obtain licence and hence the application.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 08.08.2014, the coercive steps were intercepted and the interim order was being extended from time to time. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
3. In the said circumstance, the respondent Municipality is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 application preferred by the petitioner for granting D & O licence, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing. A speaking order in this regard shall be passed at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . Interim order passed by this Court will continue till such time.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk