The petitioners claim to possess a licence issued by the competent authority under Section 24 of the Kerala Abkari Act for the purpose of vending toddy. Their proximate grievance in having approached this Court by filing this writ petition is that in spite of the fact that they are in possession of a valid licence, the competent Authority has refused to allow them to operate the shop citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and Others v. K.Balu-I [2017 (1) KHC 26(SC)].
2. As per the petitioners, since the shop is not situated on a State Highway or a National Highway, the rigor of K.Balu (supra) could not applied to them and they add by saying that in any case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position further in State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and Others v. K.Balu [2017 (2) KHC 360] and in State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its W.P.(C) No.14968 of 2017 2 Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and Others v. K.Balu 2018 (1) KHC 970. The petitioners thus assert that the reasons which weighed with the competent Authorities at the time when this writ petition was filed is no longer relevant or germane, particularly on account of the subsequent clarifications made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. I notice that when this matter was admitted, there was an interim order granted by a learned Judge of this Court to the competent Authorities to consider the petitioners' application for licence in terms of law taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Balu (supra). I am also told that subsequent to the afore three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government of Kerala had issued an order No.G.O. (M.S)/23/2018/TD, dated 16.03.2018, granting permission to the concerned competent officials to consider the applications of existing licence holders for renewal or new applicants on a case to case basis, after taking into account the population density of the areas in question. After this circular, a Government Order bearing No.E.X.C./5378/2016/XC7, dated 16.03.2018, was issued by the Excise Commissioner authorising the Deputy Excise W.P.(C) No.14968 of 2017 3 Commissioners to consider/permit the operation of shops where licences have been granted or renewed after considering each individual application in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also the Government Order dated 16.03.2018 afore referred.
4. In view of these developments, it becomes ineluctable that the factual factors with respect to the shops has now obtained a complete change from the first judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Balu (supra). As matters now stand, consideration of individual applications are to be done by the concerned Excise Officials of the area in question, including the Deputy Commissioner, after taking into account the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the petitioners' apprehension of a blanket ban in consideration of their application for licence or its renewal is no longer relevant or germane.
5. In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition confirming the interim order granted by this Court on the 2 nd May, 2017 and direct the Authorities to scrupulously follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore three W.P.(C) No.14968 of 2017 4 judgments as also the contents of the Government Order, dated 16.03.2018, with respect to the grant of licence or its renewal to the petitioners and to all such other similarly placed applicants in terms of law.
6. I am guided to this view also because any decision taken by the competent Authority subsequent to the interim order, either granting or renewing the licence or permitting the operation of the shop, would obviously offer a fresh cause of action, which, however, cannot be prosecuted further in this writ petition.
Therefore, reserving such liberty, if it is so required to be exercised, I close this writ petition.