Chithrapuri Hotels India (Pvt) Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014/30TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 21555 of 2014 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------- CHITHRAPURI HOTELS INDIA (PVT) LTD. PARALI, EDATHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.A.K.DINESAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN (LATE) BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE PALAKKAD - 678 001. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHERIN.C.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2014, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NOS. 21557/2014 AND 21575/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21555 of 2014 (T) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- EXT.P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAR CLASSIFICATION ORDER DATED 10-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE INDIA TOURISM CHENNAI. EXT.P2 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20-10-2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-11-2011 IN WPC.NO.31518/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO(P)NO.192/2011/TD DATED 9-12-2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P5 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER XC6-27879/2011 DATED 23-2-2012 PASSED BNY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, GO(P)NO.48/2012/TD DATED 27-3-2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P7 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-11-2011 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION 2012(3) KHC 653(DB) SURENDRA DAS B. VS. STATE OF KERALA EXT.P9 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-9-2012 IN SLP(C)NO.26241-26243/2012 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT EXT.P10- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC6-27879/2011 DATED 4-2-2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P11 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2014(1) KLT 948(SC) STATE OF KERALA VS. SURENDRA DAS EXT.P12 -PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO(P)NO.20/2013/TD DATED 12-2-2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P13 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2012(2) KLT 167(DB) KALLADA HOTELS & RESORTS VS. STATE OF KERALA EXT.P14 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2012(4) KHC 735 (DB) STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS VS. BABU JOHN EXT.P15 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-6-2013 IN WPC.NO.8170/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P16 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2014(2) KHC 343(DB) STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS VS. M.P.SHIJU EXT.P17 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-2-2014 IN WPC NO.10340/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in all the captioned writ petitions were grantees of FL-3 licence under the Foreign Liquor Rules (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioner companies in W.P.(C) Nos.21555/2014 and 21575/2014 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21557/2014 who is the proprietor of hotel by name 'Hotel Sreevalsam Residency' applied for issuance of FL-3 licence under Rule 13(3) of the Rules. All the three hotels in question are classified as 3 star hotels. Earlier, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 5212/2012, 5008/2012 and 5311/2012, respectively consequent to the rejection of their applications as per Ext.P5, Ext.P5 order in all these writ petitions, passed by the second respondent, the Excise Commissioner evidently, taking note of G.O.(Ms) No 187/2011/TD dated 8/12/2011 that brought about amendments in the Rules including deletion of 3 star hotel from the category of hotels eligible for FL-3 licence under Rule 13(3) of the Rules. Those writ petitions along with certain connected writ petitions and writ appeals were allowed by a Division Bench of this **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 2 Court as per a common judgment in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** reported in 2012(3) KHC 653 (DB). As per the said decision this Court declared the impugned amendments as unconstitutional and the impugned orders passed by the second respondent were vacated with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider and grant FL-3 licence to all eligible hotels with 3 star classification and above and heritage classification, based on the unamended Rules. Evidently, the petitioners herein and some other appellants/petitioners had also taken up an alternative contention in the proceedings that culminated in **Surendra Das'** s case (supra) in case of repulsion of their challenge against the amendments. They alternatively contended that prior to the amendment their applications were duly recommended by the Excise Commissioner and therefore in the light of the judgment in W.A.No.469/2012 ( **Kallada Hotels and Resorts V State of Kerala** ) reported in 2012(2) KLT 167 (DB) they are entitled to get the licences. A perusal of paragraph 31 of the said judgment would reveal that the said contention was not actually gone into by this Court. It would reveal that taking note of the fact that the challenge of the petitioners were liable to succeed on other grounds that question was not dealt with in detail and, at any rate, the ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners were not granted an order, in their favour, for grant of licences based on the said contentions. Admittedly, independent appeals were filed against the common judgment passed by this Court in **Surendra Das'** case including against the judgments in the aforementioned writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Admittedly, all those Civil Appeal and connected matters filed by the State against the aforementioned common judgment in **Surendra Das'** case were allowed in part by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as is obvious from the decision in **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das** reported in 2014 (1) KLT 948 (SC). For the sake of convenience hereafter in this judgment, the decision of the Division Bench is referred to as **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is referred to as **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das.** The operative portion of the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads thus:- “41. For the reasons stated above we allow these appeals in part and hold as follows: (i) The judgment rendered by the Division Bench is set-aside to the extent it interferes with the amendment brought in the year 2011. The decision of three star hotel from the category of hotels eligible for FL-3 licenses under R.13(3) is held valid. (ii) As far as the amendment brought in 2012 including the distance rule by way of addition of Rule (3E) in Rule 13(3) is 4 ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** concerned, the same is held to be bad in law. The judgment of the High Court is confirmed to that extent. (iii) The State Government will not proceed to deny FL3 licenses to hotels with a classification of four star and above by resorting to their deletion under R.13(3) until the report of the one-man commission is received, and until it takes action against the non-standard restaurants which have been permitted under the sixth and seventh proviso of Rule 13(3). (iv) No order is necessary on the Contempt Petitions and they stand disposed of. (v) All parties will bear their own costs. “ It is an admitted position that pending those Civil Appeals that culminated in the decision in **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das** of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** FL-3 liences were granted to the petitioner under Rule 13(3) of the Rules. Indisputably, such a situation arose when the rejection of the prayer of the State for staying the implementation of the decision by the Division Bench in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** was rejected. Admittedly, a direction was also issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in certain cases including in the case of the petitioners, to consider the applications for FL-3 licence within the time stipulated by the Apex Court, as an interim order, as is obvious from Ext.P9 in all these cases. In fact, the **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 5 contempt petitions were also filed for non-compliance with the directions in the said interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Subsequently, the respondents considered the applications and granted FL-3 licence in certain cases and rejected applications for its grant of some other cases. The petitioners herein were also granted FL-3 licence subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition /Civil Appeals. Admittedly, all those contempt petitions were posted to be heard along with the Civil Appeals and connected matters. Obviously, all the Civil Appeals filed against the aforesaid decision by the Division Bench in the matter of amendment brought in the year 2011, were allowed in part and the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the deletion of three star hotels from the category of hotels eligible for FL-3 licences under Rule 13(3) of the Rules. “40. Before we conclude the proceedings, we may refer to one more development in this matter. In as much as this Court had not granted any stay of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, an order was passed by this Court on 19.9.2012 that the applications of the claimants for the licenses be considered in eight weeks. Since no decision was forthcoming, some of the respondents filed Contempt Petitions bearing Nos.449 of 2012 and other contempt petitions. A notice was issued on the Contempt Petition No.449 of 2012 filed by the ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 6 respondent B.Surendra Das. A reply was filed on behalf of the appellants on 25.10.2013 that they had considered the applications, some of them were rejected, and in the rest further information was sought. These steps were initiated within the time stipulated by this Court, and due to the large number of applications, the decision was taking its own time. On 8.2.2013, this Court directed that the Contempt Petitions be heard alongwith the Special Leave Petitions. Since, the Civil Appeals arising out of these S.L.P.s are being disposed of with this order, no separate orders are required on the Contempt Petitions. The Appellants will have to act now in terms of the order being passed therein. 41.For the reasons stated above we allow these appeals in part and hold as follows:- (i) The judgment rendered by the Division Bench is set-aside to the extent it interferes with the amendment brought in the year 2011. The deletion of three star hotels from the category of hotels eligible for FL3 licenses under R.13(3) is held valid. (ii) As far as the amendment brought in 2012 introducing the distance rule by way of addition of Rule 3(E) in Rule 13(3) is concerned, the same is held to be bad in law. The judgment of the High Court is confirmed to that extent. (iii) The State Government will not proceed to deny FL3 licenses to hotels with a classification of four star and above by resorting to their deletion under R.13(3) until the report of the one-man commission is received, and until it takes action against the nonstandards restaurants which have been permitted under the sixth and seventh proviso of R.13(3). 7 ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** (iv)No order is necessary on the Contempt Petitions and they stand disposed of. (v) All parties will bear their own costs”. Paragraph 41(i) and (iv) above are relevant for the purpose of these cases. 2. As stated hereinbefore, the petitioners in these cases are conducting 3 star classified hotels and though the applications submitted by them for grant of FL-3 licence under Rule 13(3) were originally rejected, they were subsequently granted subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The fact that subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeals as per the decision in **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das** the licences issued in favour of the petitioners were cancelled and admittedly, thereupon, the petitioners herein as similarly situated persons move separate petitions in those civil appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court challenging the order of cancellation and those matters are now posted for hearing to the 2[nd] week of December, 2014. It is pending decision on such petitions moved in the concerned civil appeals of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the petitioners have come up before this Court with the captioned writ ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 8 petitions. Evidently, the common contention is that since the Division Bench in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** has not considered the contentions of the petitioners based on **Kallada** 's case (supra) and at any rate, no positive direction was issued after considering such contentions, their applications are liable to be considered afresh in the light of the said decision pending consideration of the petitions before the Hon'ble Apex Court filed against the order of cancellation of the FL-3 licences. Virtually, the challenge is against the original orders of rejection of their applications for FL3 licence, viz., Ext.P5 in all these writ petitions. These writ petitions carry similar prayers as hereunder:- “(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P5 by quashing the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction. (ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get FL-3 license under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules as per Ext.P2 application in the light of Ext.P7 recommendation of the Excise Commissioner dated 10.11.2011 considering the law/rule prevailed on the date of Ext.P7. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to issue FL-3 license under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules as per Ext.P2 application to the petitioner considering the law/rule ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** prevailed/existed on the date of Ext.P7. 10.11.2011 at the earliest.” Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) Nos. 21555 and 21575 of 2014, are dated 10.11.2011 and Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No. 21557 of 2014 is dated 13.10.2011. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. A scrutiny of the common contentions raised by the petitioners would reveal that they are founded on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Kallada Hotels and Resorts V State of Kerala** reported in 2012(2) KLT 167. The crux of the contention is that by virtue of the said decision their applications were to be considered in the light of the unamended rules taking into account the recommendations made by the second respondent viz., Ext.P7 in all these writ petitions and in the light of the decision in **Kallada** 's case (supra). The petitioners are also relying on judgments rendered by this Court in Exts.P14 to P17 evidently, rendered based on the decision in **Kallada** 's case (supra) to support the claims and contentions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** that the Division Bench in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** virtually left open the alternative contentions raised by the petitioners relying on the decision in W.A.No.469/2012 and Ext.P13 judgment in **Kallada** 's case (supra). The said submission was made in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 31 of **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** . Evidently, no specific finding was entered into by the Court or any specific direction was issued by this Court relying on the said decision as is evident from the following observations by the Division Bench in paragraph 31 :- “31. In W.A.No.470 of 2012 and W.P.(C) Nos. 188, 2529, 5008, 5212 and 5311 of 2012 the appellant/petitioners have raised additional ground by stating that even if the two amendments alternatively challenged by them are not sustained by this Court, still they are entitled to licence because all these petitioners have obtained star classification from the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India much before the introduction of the amendment and their applications have been recommended by the Excise Commissioner before the amendment. Sanction was not accorded by the Government due to the amendment in some instances, based on the direction of this Court the question of sanction was considered and while reconsidering the case, the Rule proposed to be amended was taken into consideration for rejecting the sanction. So far as the other cases are **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 11 concerned, in the original order, the position prior to the amendment was reckoned and if so, the amended provision cannot be relied on by the respondents to deny the licence. The State has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kuldeep Singh V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and State of Kerala V B.Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court held that the law applicable as on the date of consideration of application for grant of licence is to be applied. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners have relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.469 of 2012 dated 14.03.2012, wherein this Court held that the law to be applied is the law as on on the date on which the Excise Commissioner reconsidered application for grant of licence and when he recommends it based on the Rule in force as on that date, then the subsequent amendment should not be relied on by the Government to deny licence. We also notice that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the judgment in W A No.469 of 2012 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 20.6.2012 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18392/2012, however, keeping the question of law open. Between the Government and the Excise authorities consideration on merit is done by the Excise Authorities and when the Excise Commissioner recommends with reference to the law as on the date of his order, then the Government cannot decline it merely because they passed amendment subsequent to the order. However, we do not think we should enter into the controversy because our judgment above helps ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 12 these appellants/petitioners also to get licence. We therefore allow all these Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions declaring the deletion of three star hotels from Rule 13(3) by SRO No.779/2011 dated 09.12.2011 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also by declaring that addition of sub-rule (3E) to Rule 13 by SRO No.202/2012 dated 27/03/2012 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” Ground 'A' to 'D' in these writ petitions are raised in substantiate the contentions. 6. A scanning of paragraph 31 of the decision in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** would reveal that such an alternative contention was raised by the petitioners and certain others in the light of the **Kallada** 's case and it was discussed by the Division Bench. Nonetheless, the Division Bench after making observation evidently, thought it fit not to enter into the controversy as the judgment would, even otherwise, help the petitioners also to get licence. Admittedly, the matter was subsequently taken up before the Hon'ble Apex Court and, in fact, the State had taken up appeals against the judgment the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals including the aforementioned writ petitions filed by the petitioners, which were allowed as per the decision in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala.** The 13 ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** contention of the petitioners is that since their challenge against Ext.P5 was not considered in the light of the decision in **Kallada** 's case (supra) and their entitlement to FL-3 licence was also not considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** the fact that the order of cancellation of the licences was challenged and now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court shall not be a ground for deferring a decision in these writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the said circumstances insisted that these writ petitions may be taken up for consideration on merits. It is in the said circumstances despite the admitted position that the petitions filed by the writ petitioners herein against the order of cancellation before the Hon'ble Apex Court are posted for hearing in the 2[nd] week of December, 2014 that these matters are taken up for consideration. 7. True that, as per Ext.P8 judgment in ( **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala)** all these writ petitions the impugned Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent rejecting their applications for grant of FL-3 licence based on the amendment brought into the Rules as per G.O. dated 8.12.2011 (Ext.P4) was interfered by a Division Bench of this Court. Consequential direction to consider their applications in the **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 14 light of the unamended rules were also issued. At the same time, in the light of Ext.P11 judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das** it is evident that the amendment to the extent it pertains to the deletion of 3 start hotels from the category of hotels eligible for FL-3 licences under Rule 13(3) was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also evident from the said decision in **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das** that the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed it only to the extent it interfered with the amendments brought in the year 2012 introducing the distance rules by way of addition of 3E in Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to canvass the position that in the light of the direction (i) in paragraph 41 of the judgment in **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das** it has to be understood that the contentions taken up by the petitioners in the light of the judgment in W.A.No.469/2012 were virtually left open. It is to be noted that as per the first direction rather, declaration, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the validity of the deletion of 3 star hotels from the category of hotels eligible for FL-3 licence under Rule 13(3). The appeals were allowed in part and declaration/finding No.(ii) thereunder it reads thus:- “(ii) As far as the amendments brought in 2012 introducing the **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** distance rules by way of addition of 3E in Rule 13(3) is concerned, the same is held to be bad in law. The judgment of the High Court is confirmed to that extent.” 8. Thus, it is evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench only to the extent it interfered with the amendment brought in the year 2012 introducing the distance rules by way of addition of 3E in Rule 13(3). In the said circumstances I am of the view that taking note of the observations of this Court in paragraph 31 of **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** (Ext.P8) the eligibility or otherwise of the claim of the petitioners for grant of FL-3 licence based on **Kalllada** 's case (supra) (judgment in W.A.No.469/2012) in the light of the amendment brought into the rules by virtue of Ext.P4 was not at all actually considered by this Court, as is obvious from Ext.P8 judgment, **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala.** The petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the said alternative contention based on **Kallada** 's case (supra) was upheld by this Court and therefore, their applications should have been considered in the light of the recommendations of the Excise Commissioner as in such a case filing of these writ petition is not the remedy and in the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court in ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** 16 **Balakrishna Pisharady v. KSEB** reported in 1987 (2) KLT 937 their remedy lies under the Contempt of Courts Act. True that, the petitioners were granted FL-3 licences pending the Special Leave Petitions arising from W.P.(C) Nos. 5008, 5212 and 5311 of 2012. Later, pursuant to the pronouncement of the judgment in **State of Kerala v. Surendra Das ,** (Ext.P11 judgment), those licences issued in favour of the petitioners subject to the outcome of the civil appeals, were cancelled. The petitions filed by the writ petitioners against the said action of cancellation of licences are pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and they are posted to the 2[nd] week of December, 2014 for hearing. When the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ext.P11 judgment held that the judgment of the High Court in **Surendra Das v. State of Kerala** is confirmed only to the extent it interfered with the amendments and quashed the amendments brought in 2012 introducing the distance rules by way of addition of 3E in Rule 13(3) I am of the view that pending consideration of those petitions by the the Hon'ble Apex Court this Court would not be justified in entertaining these writ petitions and considering the contentions taken up by the petitioners, especially in view of the fact that the Division Bench had not actually gone into contentions raised by the petitioners relying on **Kallada** 's case (supra) ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 21555, 21557 & 21575 of 2014** **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** in the light of Ext.P4 amendment. In short, I am of the view that the question whether it is still available to the petitioners to be raised before this Court in a writ petition could be considered only after the disposal of the petitions/applications admittedly filed by the petitioners in their respective civil appeals which were disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court as per Ext.P11 judgment in **State of Kerala v Surendra Das** . In the said circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners, if any, to take up such contentions at the appropriate time after the disposal of the said petitions and subject to the orders therein, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.** dlk