Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38067/2008 of V.DEVADAS Vs STATE OF KERALA on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38067 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.DEVADAS, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.M.K.VELAYUDHAN (LATE), MANNATHU HOUSE, PAPPADY,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38067 of 2008(F)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
V.DEVADAS, AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.M.K.VELAYUDHAN (LATE),
MANNATHU HOUSE, PAPPADY, AKATHETHARA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
PALAKKAD.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-----------------------
W.P.(C).No.38067 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 26[th] day of December, 2008.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was allottedToddy Shops in Group No.VI of Nemnara Excise Range in PalakkadDivision for the Abkari year 2008-09. After completing allformalities, petitioner commenced his business and while so Ext.P1show cause notice was issued by the 2[nd] respondent calling upon thepetitioner, why the licenses shall not be cancelled on the allegationthat the petitioner had suppressed that he was a governmentservant as on 26.03.2008, when he applied for allotment of theToddy shops.
2. According to the petitioner without giving him anopportunity of hearing, the 3[rd] respondent passed Ext.P3 ordercancelling the licence and that, as a result thereof, the shops havebeen closed. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner has filed Ext.P4appeal before the 1[st] respondent along with Ext.P5 stay petition. Inthis writ petition, petitioner complains that orders are not beenpassed on Ext.P4 or Ext.P5 so far and that in the meanwhile onaccount of the closure of the Toddy Shop he deprived of hislivelihood.
WP(C).No.38067/2008 /2/
3. Taking into account the aforesaid limited grievance ofthe petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing that ifExt.P4 has been received and is pending before the 1[st] respondent,Ext.P4 shall disposed of, with notice to the petitioner, asexpeditiously as possible at any rate within 4 weeks of a productionof a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.
vi/
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
WP(C).No.38067/2008 /2/