RP Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023/2ND SRAVANA, 1945** **RP NO.614 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 02.03.2023 IN WA 489/2023 AND W.P.(C) No.6777/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **HOTEL HILLWAY PARK, MARUKKUMMON, NILAMEL P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR VANJU KAMAL, S/O.LATE S. KAMALASANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANJU VILLA, KADAKKAL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691536.** **BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN PAUL BABY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **2 COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** - **3 DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, EXCISE COMPLEX, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691001.** - **4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN – 691013.** **2** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **5 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTARAKARA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691506.** **BY ADV. SRI. K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH RP Nos.629/2023, 633/2023 AND 639/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **3** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023/2ND SRAVANA, 1945** **RP NO.629 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 02.03.2023 IN WA 494/2023 AND W.P.(C) No.6774/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **HOTEL HILLWAY, KADAKKAL MAIN ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR VANJU KAMAL, S/O.LATE S.KAMALASANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANJU VILLA, KADAKKAL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691536.** **BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN PAUL BABY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **2 COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** **4** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **3 DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, EXCISE COMPLEX, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691001.** - **4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHUMUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN – 691013.** - **5 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTARAKARA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691506.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH RP Nos.614/2023, 633/2023 AND 639/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **5** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023/2ND SRAVANA, 1945** ## **RP NO.633 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 02.03.2023 IN W.A No.491/2023 AND W.P.(C) No.6917/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 HOTEL SREEVALSAM RESIDENCY, OLAVACODE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARUN RAJ RESIDING AT RAJA VALSAM, PANANGAD P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689503.** - **2 HOTEL VEEYEMMAR INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.NARAYANANKUTTY, RESIDING AT KOUNDAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VELLINEZHI P.O., CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679503.** - **3 HOTEL SOORYA RESIDENCY, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, V.M.RADHAKRISHNAN RESIDING AT NINETITHA, DPO ROAD, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.** - **4 HOTEL FORT PALACE,, WEST FORT, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, V.SUDEVAN, RESIDING AT NANDHINI HOUSE, BRINDAVAN COLONY, NEAR FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.** **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **6** - **5 HOTEL SOORYA CONTINENTAL, OLAVACODE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NITHIN.R, RESIDING AT NINETITHA, DPO ROAD, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.** - **6 HOTEL AMMBADI, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANTHOSH T, RESIDING AT SREEDURGA, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678012.** - **7 HOTEL INDRAPRASTHA ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR C P DHANESH, CHAMAKKAD HOUSE, VANDAZHI P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678706.** - **8 HOTEL KAIRALI TOWER, NEAR STADIUM STAND, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT 11/538, HARIKKARA STREET, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.** - **9 HOTEL KAIRALI, SHORNUR ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT 11/538, HARIKKARA STREET, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.** - **10 HOTEL CHANAKYA, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SATHEESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT MUNDAKODE KALAM, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678007.** - **11 HOTEL SRICHACKRA INTERNATIONAL, CHANDRANAGAR P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KRISHNA PRABHUDAS K, RESIDING AT 12/220, KRISHNA GARDENS, PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRANAGAR P.O. PALAKKAD, PIN – 678007.** **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **7** - **12 KALYAN TOURIST HOME, G.B ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.AJAYAKUMAR, FLAT 13D, GALAXY ELYZIUM COURT, ARAVIDH GHOSH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001.** **BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN PAUL BABY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **2 COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** - **3 DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, EXCISE TOWER, DURGA NAGAR, KENATHUPARAMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.** - **4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678013.** - **5 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, YAKKARA ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678014.** **8** **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **6 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD, SOUTH POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE ROAD, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678013.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH RP Nos.614/2023, 629/2023 AND 639/2023,, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **9** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023/2ND SRAVANA, 1945** **RP NO.639 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 02.03.2023 IN WA 495/2023 AND W.P.(C) No.6678/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 SAI RAJESH C., AGED 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL RAJADHANI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679303, RESIDING AT CHITTANIPARA HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 679306.** - **2 C. REEJA, AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL RAJAPRASTHAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679303, RESIDING AT CHITTANIPARA HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 679306.** **BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM MERCIAMMA MATHEW ASWIN.P.JOHN R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN PAUL BABY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **10** - **2 COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** - **3 DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, EXCISE TOWER, DURGA NAGAR, KENATHUPARAMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.** - **4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678013.** - **5 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, YAKKARA ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678014.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH RP Nos.614/2023, 629/2023 AND 633/2023,, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **(CR)** **ALEXANDER THOMAS & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. ======================================= R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023 ======================================= Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2023** ## **ORDER** ## **C.Jayachandran, J.** **The review petitions afore referred are carried from the common judgment dated 02.03.2023 in W.A.Nos. 489, 491, 494, 495, 497 and 498 of 2023 and in W.P.(C) Nos.6678, 6774, 6777, 6816, 6878 and 6917 of 2023. In the writ appeals and the writ petitions referred above, the subject matter of challenge were orders issued by the District Magistrate under Section 54 of the Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077) in connection with various religious festivals. The writ petitions and writ appeals were dismissed by the judgment under review, sustaining the orders passed by the District Magistrate under Section 54 of the Abkari Act.** **2. The review petitions are premised on the** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** ## **2** **following grounds:** **i) The settled legal position as regards the power of the District Magistrate under Section 54 of the Abkari Act, which held the field for a period of more than 15 years pursuant to the authoritative pronouncements in** _**Thomas George v. State of Kerala and Ors.**_ **[2015 (2) KLT SN 35 (case No.43) – produced as Ext.P3 in the writ petitions] and** _**State of Kerala and Ors. v. Mary Kurian and Ors.**_ **[2018 ICO 4135], was unsettled by the impugned common judgment under review.** **ii) Following** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court in** _**Vanju Kamal v. State of Kerala**_ **(Annexure-A1) reiterated the legal position and held that an order under Section 54 shall be issued at least** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **3** **one week prior to the event, so that the legal remedies available to the aggrieved persons are not stifled. Acting upon the law laid down in** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) and** _**Vanju Kamal**_ **(supra), the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P4 circular dated 29.04.2009 stipulating the parameters to be borne in mind while issuing an order under Section 54, which also mandated the above referred time-requirement of one week prior to the event, for issuing an order under Section 54. According to the review petitioner, the mandatory character of Ext.P4 circular has been substantially watered-down by the judgment under review, inasmuch as it interpreted the said circular as a mere guideline.** **iii) The judgment is sought to be reviewed** **4** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **also on the premise that it runs contrary to yet another bench decision in** _**Hotel Park Residency v. State of Kerala**_ **[2023 SCC Online Ker 1906] produced as Annexure-A2 to the review petition.** **iv) Rule 28A does not contemplate closure of liquor outlets, except on the days specified therein, wherefore the ban imposed under Section 54 is illegal and unreasonable. Simultaneous to this, the review petitioner also press into service the observation of the Division Bench in** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) that in the absence of a provision for remittance of licence fee, the imposition of ban by the District Magistrate, without there being any policy decision of the Government amounts to unreasonable restriction in the conduct of** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **5** **a business, which finding of the Division Bench in** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) is also set at naught by the impugned common judgment.** **3. Heard Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Sri. K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.** **4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records, we are of the opinion that instant review petitions are nothing, but appeals in disguise. We will first delineate the contours of review of a judgment rendered in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Insofar as proceedings such as madamus or certiorari is concerned, which are of a civil nature, the power of the High Court to review its own judgment has to be traced and exercised within the frame work of Section 114, read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of** **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **6** **Civil procedure [see** _**Union of India and Ors. v. B. - Valluvan and Ors.**_ **(2006) 8 SCC 686]. Order 47 Rule 1 recognises review on grounds of discovery of new and important matter for evidence, which was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner, despite exercise of due diligence; on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or for any other sufficient reason. However, the Honourable Supreme Court in** _**Shivdev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ **[AIR 1963 SC 1909], reiterated in** _**Pohla Singh alias Pohla ram (d) by lrs. and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.**_ **[(2004) 6 SCC 126] held that the High Court has an inherent power of review under Article 226, apart from the grounds for review enumerated in the Code. This power has been treated by the Supreme Court as one which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave** **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **7** **and palpable errors committed by it [see in this regard the decision in C** _**ommon cause, A registered - Society v. Union of India and Ors.**_ **(1999) 6 SCC 667] as well]. Two propositions are relevant in the context of the instant review petitions. The first is that the power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, because that could be a province of the court of appeal [see,** _**Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Pishak Sharma**_ **- (1979) 4 SCC 389]. The second is that the power of review should not be exercised when the order had worked itself out [see** _**Asha Prasad v. Chandrakant - Gopalka and Ors.**_ **(2003) 12 SCC 347]. An inference which we deduce from the afore referred authoritative pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court is that review petitions are liable to be allowed, if the new fact/evidence or the mistake was brought to the attention of the Court at the time of delivering the** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **8** **judgment under review, the fate/outcome of that judgment would not have been so. In other words, the fact/evidence, or for that matter the mistake, subsequently pointed out for review should be so fundamental, so as to go to the root of the matter, that the court would not have exercised the jurisdiction to allow or dismiss the claim, as the case may be.** **5. Coming to the instant facts, we will deal with the grounds, one by one. The first ground is with respect to the impact of** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) and** _**Mary Kurian**_ **(supra). We may straight away refer to paragraph no.4 of the common judgment under review, to find that the contention of the writ appellant based on the two judgments afore referred were taken stock of by the Division Bench. The specific argument of the writ appellant based on** _**Mary Kurian**_ **(supra) and** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) is taken note of** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **9** **elaborately in paragraph no.4 of the judgment. This contention is seen addressed by the Division Bench in paragraph no.6 of the judgment. After dealing with the fact situation which arose in** _**Mary Kurian**_ **(supra) and** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) (being referred to with respect to the number of the writ petition), the Division Bench arrived at a conclusion in paragraph no.7 that the facts are distinguishable and that the distinction drawn by the learned Single Judge to refuse stay of the order of the District Magistrate under Section 54 (from which the subject writ appeals arose) were found to be perfectly in order. In** _**Mary Kurian**_ **(supra) and** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra), the ban was imposed for 9 days whereas in the instant cases, the ban was only for a single day and in one case, for two days.** **6. We find yet another pertinent facet of** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) in the context of the review** **10** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **petitioner's claim about its binding nature as a precedent. The following observation towards end of paragraph no.2 of the judgment are relevant and** ## **extracted hereunder:** _**“....We make it clear that the order is confined only to the petitioner herein and not being passed as the judgment in rem be complied with. We also make it clear that this order shall not preclude the above District Magistrate and District Collector, Pathanamthitta to exercise the powers under Section 54 of the Abkari Act in future, but, only if the circumstances so warrant”.**_ **7. It could thus be seen that the judgment in** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) was confined to the petitioner and the facts therein, which could not fetter the powers of the District Magistrate under Section 54 of the Abkari Act, if the circumstances warrants the exercise of such power. Therefore, what has to be looked into is whether the circumstances in the instant cases warranted the imposition of ban under Section 54, which aspect has been dealt with elaborately in the judgment under review, to find** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **11** **that the imposition of ban was quite justified, reasonable and warranted. We therefore, reject the first ground.** **8. The second ground is the judgment of a learned Single Judge followed by Ext.P4 circular. We may straight away reject the said ground as well for three reasons. The first is that it may not be practicable to give one week's prior notice before imposing a ban to keep the liquor shop closed, having regard to the scope of Section 54 of the Abkari Act. The first limb of Section 54 deals with a situation to keep the liquor outlet/bar closed “for the preservation of the public peace”. The second limb speaks of an apprehended or a real riot or unlawful assembly in the vicinity of any such shop. A breach of peace, riot or unlawful assembly may spurt instantaneously for myriad reasons, in which case, it is not at all practicable to give one week's prior** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **12** **notice, as directed by the learned Single Judge. The second reason for rejecting the ground is that the judgment in** _**Vanju Kamal**_ **(supra) is a Single Bench decision, which the Division Bench is not bound to follow, especially with respect to the direction of one week's notice. This is all the more so, since the Division bench in** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) did not feel it necessary to give any such direction. Although** _**Vanju Kamal**_ **(supra) followed** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra), this part of direction with respect to one week's notice cannot be traced to** _**Thomas George**_ **(supra) and therefore, cannot bind the Division Bench, which rendered the common judgment under review. The third reason to reject the ground is with respect to the so-claimed mandatory character of Ext.P4 circular. The same set of reasons which weighed with us to discount** _**Vanju Kamal**_ **(supra), would hold good with respect to Ext.P4 circular as well, for, Ext.P4** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **13** **circular was issued in consonance with and in obedience of** _**Vanju Kamal**_ **(supra), insofar as the requirement of one week's notice is concerned. Inasmuch as the Division Bench observed in paragraph no.9 of the judgment under review that the notice period of 7 days prescribed cannot be taken as a mandate, since emergent situations may have to be dealt with, the consequent observation of the Division Bench that Ext.P4 circular can only be in the nature of a guideline, requires no re-visit. We reject the said ground also for the reason that a direction issued by a Single Bench, pursuant to the interpretation of a statutory provision which cannot be considered as fully legal, cannot enslave the clear discretion afforded to the statutory authority as per Section 54 of the Abkari Act. It is trite that an executive order in the form of a circular can neither whittle down nor super-add a condition to the** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **14** **statutory scheme, which in the instant cases, is the one envisaged under Section 54 of the Abkari Act. For the afore said reasons, we reject the the second ground based on** _**Vanju Kamal (supra)**_ **and Ext.P4 circular.** **9. The third is a judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in** _**Hotel Park Residency**_ **(supra), which is produced as Annexure-A2 to the review petitions. We notice that this judgment is one rendered subsequent to the common judgment under review, which has to be read and understood in the facts obtaining in that case. On facts, the Division Bench found in that case that no reliable material was placed, which would warrant the closure of liquor outlets and that such a ban cannot be imposed merely by referring to a religious festival. In contradistinction, the facts here are different and adequate materials were taken stock of in passing the impugned orders under Section** **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **15** **54 of the Act, which has been dealt with elaborately in the judgment under review.** **10. The last and final ground under review is one based on Rule 28A of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. Having gone through the said Rule, we find no warrant for any interference with the judgment under review based on the said Rule. Rule 28A specifies certain days of national and other importance and mandates that the licenced premise shall remain closed on that days. Rule 28A cannot be pressed into service to contend that the licensee has the absolute right to open the liquor outlets on all other days and interpretation in that direction would run foul to the mandate and situations envisaged under Section 54. We reject the review sought for on that ground as well.** **11. Above all, we notice that the separate orders issued by the District Magistrate under Section 54 of** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **16** **the Abkari Act in connection with the various religious festivals made mention of in the judgment under review have worked itself out, wherefore the said orders of the District Magistrate which were the subject matter of challenge in the various writ petitions, do not survive any more. Resultantly, the review sought for is in the teeth of** _**Asha Prasad**_ **(supra) and dismissal of the petitions is warranted for that reason as well.** **In the result these review petitions fail and the same are therefore dismissed.** **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** **==> picture [16 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 614/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/03/2009 IN W.P.(C)NO.5748 OF 2009. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/3/2023 IN W.A.NO.698 OF 2023.** **18** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 629/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 5/3/2009 IN W.P.(C)NO.5748 OF 2009. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/3/2023 IN W.A.NO.698 OF 2023.** **19** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 633/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 5/3/2009 IN W.P.(C)NO.5748 OF 2009. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/3/2023 IN W.A.NO.698 OF 2023.** **20** ## **R.P. Nos.614, 629, 633 and 639 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 639/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 5/3/2009 IN W.P.(C)NO.5748 OF 2009. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/3/2023 IN W.A.NO.698 OF 2023.**