P.K. Ramachandran vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

C.T. Ravikumar, J.—Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are intrinsically intertwined they are taken up for joint consideration and disposal. The 3rd petitioner in the former writ petition let out his building to the first respondent viz., the petitioner in the latter writ petition, for conducting a retail outlet of liquor products. The petitioners 1 and 2 are persons residing near to the building in question where the petitioner in the latter writ petition conducts the outlet. For convenient sake the parties are referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with their status in the former writ petition. The contention of the petitioners is that the first respondent is conducting the outlet in the said building without obtaining a D & O licence from the second respondent panchayath. The 3rd petitioner apprehends some coercive steps from the part of the competent authorities for allowing the first respondent to function in his building without a valid D & O licence. The latter writ petition has been filed by the first respondent on being aggrieved by the non consideration of Ext.P4 application submitted for the purpose of grant of D & O licence, by the respondents 2 and 3.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader and in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition taking into account the contentions of the petitioners I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the common second respondent and also the 3rd respondent in the latter writ petition. Evidently, the first respondent submitted an application for grant of D & O licence pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment. The grievance of the first respondent is that though the common second respondent viz., Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat received the application no decision was taken thereon. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that when such an application is submitted for the grant of D & O licence before the competent authority that authority is bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, whatever be the abjections raised against the grant of D & O licence the authority concerned is bound to take a decision thereon, in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the functioning of the outlet belonging to the first respondent in said building No.XII/443 (Old No.KPIII/202A) of Kizhakkambalam without obtaining the D & O licence, the petitioners have already raised their grievances and objections before the second respondent through Ext.P2. Obviously, Ext.P2 objection filed by the petitioners and Ext.P4 application submitted by the first respondent are now pending consideration before respondents 2 and 3 in the latter writ petition. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions these writ petition are disposed of as hereunder:- The 3rd respondent in the latter writ petition, the secretary of the common second respondent panchayath shall consider Ext.P4 application referred as such in the latter writ petition filed by the first respondent for the grant of D & O licence and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the said authority. Needless to say that before taking a decision thereon the objection submitted by the petitioner viz., Ezt.P2 in the former writ petition shall also be taken up for consideration.