T. N. Prathapan v. State of Kerala and others

W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 2ND POUSHA, 1943 ## WP(C) NO. 22347 OF 2021 ## PETITIONER/S: T.N. PRATHAPAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, THOTTUPURATHU, 42/905, ANCHU MURI, KOCHI680 032. BY ADVS. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) ZAKEER HUSSAIN ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (EXCISE), TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. - 2 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEAD QUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. - 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, KACHERIPPADY, ERNAKULAM-682 018. - 4 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. - 5 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 2 : 6 K.A.JOSEPH, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. ASTHAPANOSE, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR682 017. BY ADVS. SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC, P.Y.SHEHEERA R1 BY SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R S.VINOD BHAT K.S.SANTHI LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN GEORGE A.CHERIAN R1 TO R3 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY SRI. K. JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 3 : ## **Dated this the 23[rd ] day of December, 2021.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY.** This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a public activist, seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain respondents 1 to 4 i.e., the State of Kerala, represented by Secretary (Excise), Taxes (A) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Excise Division Office, Ernakulam and the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, from opening, operating or functioning an Indian Made Foreign Liquor outlet in the building named “Asthapan Arcade” near Gold Souk, N.H. Bye-Pass, Vyttila, Ernakulam and for a further direction to the 5[th] respondent not to give any permission or license to function a foreign liquor outlet in the aforesaid building. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the beverages outlet of the 4[th] respondent corporation proposed to be opened is in the ground floor of the building belonging to the 6[th] respondent namely K. A Joseph, situated in the Vyttila Bypass of the National Highway. According to the petitioner, there are 2 schools, 2 churches and one W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 4 : College in the close vicinity of that area and the school children, their parents and the residents of the said locality use the road on the left side of the building in question as their access to the schools, churches etc. 3. It is also submitted that starting a new Beverages outlet will bring into existence long queues on the narrow road which will be a hindrance, nuisance and threat to the pedestrians using the said road. That apart, it is submitted that the functioning of the Beverages outlet in the building is likely to cause nuisance and harm to the school children and the people at large, who reside in the nearby vicinity. 4. Further, four legal contentions are raised against the opening of the proposed outlet ie., (i) the new foreign liquor outlet cannot function without the previous permission of the Municipal Corporation under Section 447(7) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 ('Act, 1994' for short); (ii) that the Kerala State Beverages Corporation has not secured a license under the Kerala Municipality (Dangerous and Offensive Trade and Factories Licensing) Rules, 2011, (which is now amended as Kerala Municipality (Issue of Licence to Industries, Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and other Services) Rules, 2011 ('Rules, 2011' for short); (iii) that the proposed storage of Foreign Liquor in the Cellar portion of the buildings is violative of the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 5 : Kerala Municipal Building Rules; and (iv) that no license is secured by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation to shift the FL shop No. 7010 from the building now occupied at the Banerji Road, Ernakulam and therefore, if the shop is permitted to be conducted in the proposed building, it would be illegal and violative of the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 ('Rules, 2002' for short). 5. Added to the said aspects, it is also contended during the course of the arguments that the proposed building is situated by the side of a service road of the National Highway near Vyttila junction and therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in _**State of Tamil Nadu v. Balu**_ [2017(1) KLT 132 (SC), wherein the Apex Court considered the issue of opening of liquor outlets by the side of National Highways and State Highways and prohibited them, and therefore the action of the respondents is violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court. 6. The State Beverages Corporation—4[th] respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit basically contending that there is no public interest involved in the subject matter, that the shop is proposed to be shifted from the present venue at Banerji Road on the basis of the directions issued by a learned single Judge of this Court due to the nuisance caused to the pedestrians and traffic, and on the basis of the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 6 : contempt proceedings in C.O.(C) No. 982 of 2021. 7. It is also submitted that the Beverages Corporation had taken all earnest efforts to find a suitable place which satisfies the statutory requirements to operate FL-1 shop and it was with much effort that the present building could be procured. Other facts and figures are shown, apart from contending that the license is already secured by the Corporation for the shop at Banerji Road, evident from Ext. R4(h) and the license is renewed upto 31.03.2022, which is the basic requirement for opening a FL-1 Shop. Therefore, according to the Beverages Corporation, no fresh license is required, but only a previous sanction is required in contemplation of the provisions of the Rules, 2002 in order to shift the shop from the present premises. 8. It is also pointed out that no permission from the Corporation of Kochi is required to start the foreign liquor shop as per sub -Section (7) Section 447 of the Act, 1994, since sub-Section 7 was omitted from the statute book on and with effect from 24.03.1999. It is also stated that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in _**K. Balu**_ (supra) was modified by the Apex Court in _**Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. Union of Territory of Chandigarh**_ [2017 KHC 4843] and further modified in _**State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Sec. And others v. K. Balu and another**_ [2018(1) KHC 970], whereby the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 7 : proposition that was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as per the Judgment dated 15[th] December, 2016 was modified and held that the order does not prohibit the licensed establishments within the Municipal areas, and the said clarification shall govern the other municipal areas as well. 9. So also, in the later clarification specified above dated 23[rd] February, 2018 in _**State of Tamil Nadu**_ (supra), the Apex Court has further modified the original judgment holding that the use of expression 'municipal areas' in the order dated 11[th] July, 2017 does not prevent the State Governments from making that determination and from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the object of the orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, individual licensees were given liberty to submit representations to the competent authorities in the State Governments, if they are so advised, upon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the State Government. That apart, it is also contended that the contention advanced by the writ petitioner in regard to the prohibition for basement storage is baseless and unfounded. 10. The 6[th] respondent i.e., the landlord, has also filed a counter affidavit basically submitting that even though the building was taken by the Beverages Corporation, due to the pendency of this writ W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 8 : petition, rent is not being paid, apart from submitting that the building has all the legal requirements in accordance with the Municipal Laws to let out the same to any prospective business establishment. The 6[th] respondent has also produced the property tax receipt etc. of the building in question. 11. We have heard, Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned Senior counsel appeared for the writ petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand, Sri. T. Naveen for the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, Sri. George Cherian for the 6[th] respondent landlord, Sri. K. Janardhara Shenoy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and Sri Vinod Bhatt for the proposed intervenors in I.A No. 1 of 2021 exercising our power conferred under Rule 152 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 and perused the pleadings and material on record. 12. The paramount contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel, during the course of arguments, is that as per Rule 7 of the Rules, 2002, no licensee of any toddy or Foreign Liquor 1 shop shall be permitted to sell or possess toddy or foreign liquor outside the local limit specified in the license. The basis of the said contention is that in Ext. R4(h) license issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ernakulam, the boundaries of the shop in the schedule is that of the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 9 : building at Banerji Road, Ernakulam, and since the boundaries are not altered and a fresh license is not issued, the shop cannot be shifted from the existing premises. 13. That apart, arguments were advanced to the effect that the trade license issued by the Kochi Municipal Corporation would show that the license is issued in the name of one T. Rajesh, Manager, Warehouse, Tripunithura to carry on the business in the proposed new building in question. Accordingly, it is submitted that no license is issued by the Kochi Corporation in favour of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation and therefore, no business can be carried on in the building in question by the Beverages Corporation. 14. Sri. Vinod Bhat who appeared for the intervenors in the interlocutory application filed seeking impleadment submitted that the clarifications and modifications made by the Apex Court in the later orders have not altered the findings contained in the judgment of the year 2016 in _**K. Balu**_ (Supra) with respect to the conduct of the liquor shops in any stretches of National or State Highways and therefore, the shop in question situated on the service road by the side of the National Highway is hit by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. 15. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 10 : Beverages Corporation has taken us through Ext. R4(c) order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ernakulam dated 16.10.2021 permitting shifting of FL shop No. 7010/2021-22 to the building No. 48/559 B1, B2 owned by the 6[th] respondent and his wife Mary Joseph within the limits of the Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Kochi Corporation. Learned Standing Counsel has also invited our attention to the change of boundaries shown in the shifting order and submitted that the contentions advanced by the petitioner contrary to the same are bereft of truth and bonafides, and necessary orders are issued by the Deputy Excise Commissioner to shift the shop in contemplation of the Rules, 2002. 16. That apart, it is pointed out that since sub-Section (7) of Section 447 of the Act, 1994 is deleted, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief on that count. It is further submitted that going by the Form 1 appended to Rules, 2011, it clear that the name of the applicant is to be mandatorily mentioned in the application and the name of the establishment that is proposed to be started also to be shown in the application and that is the reason why the name of the applicant is shown in the trade license issued by the Kochi Corporation along with the name of the establishment as beverages outlet. 17. It is further contended that the clarification made by the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 11 : Apex Court in the later orders specified above would clearly show that if the building in question is situated within the Municipal areas through which the National Highway is passing, the law laid down in the judgment in _**K. Balu**_ (supra) would not apply and therefore, the beverages outlet can be conducted in the shop in question, since it is within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation area. 18. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. Insofar as the question with respect to the shifting of outlet is concerned, Rule 7 of the Rules, 2002 would be relevant and it reads thus: “7. **The licensees of Toddy or Foreign Liquor 1 shops shall be subject to the following General Conditions, namely,** -(1) No Licensee of any Toddy or Foreign Liquor 1 shop shall be permitted to sell or possess toddy or foreign liquor outside the local limit, specified in his licence. (2) No Toddy or Foreign Liquor-1 shop notified in the Gazette under Rule 4 shall be located outside the notified limits, but with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, it may be removed from one place to another within such limits. However no such shop shall be located in or removed to a place within an area declared as a project area. No toddy shops shall be located within 400 metres and no Foreign Liquor-1 shops shall be located within 200 metres from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque, Burial ground and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Colonies. In calculating distance the basis will be the shortest pathway/lane/street road generally used by the public and the same shall be measured from gate to gate: W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 12 : Provided that if any Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque, Burial ground or Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Colonies come into existence subsequent to the grant of license, it shall not disentitle such shops for continuance. [Provided further that the restrictions regarding distance from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque, Burial ground and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Colonies for locating toddy shops shall not apply to those shops which remained unlicensed for want of unobjectionable site and which are for that reason sought to be located at the same place where they were licensed in previous years availing of the exemptions given to them by notifications/Government orders in this regard.” 19. A reading of sub- Rule 2 of Rule 7 makes it clear that a shop can be shifted from one place to another on securing the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Ext. R4(c) is the order passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner granting previous sanction for shifting the shop in question to the proposed building. It is also clear from the said order that the boundaries of the proposed building are also clearly specified in Ext. R4(c) order, and consequentially necessary endorsements are made in the licence also. 20. Insofar as the contention advanced by the petitioner in the writ petition that previous permission of the Municipal Corporation is required to open an abkari shop on the basis of sub-Section 7 of Section 447 of the Act 1994, it can never be legally sustained for the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 13 : fact that the said sub-Section was deleted as early as in the year 1999. As regards the contention with respect to the judgment of the Apex Court in _**K. Balu**_ (supra), as per the judgment dated 15[th] December, 2016, there was a clear prohibition to conduct any liquor outlet by the side of the National Highway or service road. Paragraph 10, 11 and 24 of the said judgment is relevant and it reads thus: “10. The figures which are available on the record indicate that the occurrence of a large number of road accidents is not a phenomenon confined to National Highways nor is the prevalence of road accidents, including fatalities, confined only to the National Highways. Both the National Highways and State Highways share a common experience of an unacceptably high number of road accidents, the prevalence of injuries and fatalities; drunken driving being one of the major causes. Hence, the content of the advisories which have been issued by the Union government as well as their basis, rationale and foundation would equally apply to State Highways. Human life is precious. As the road network expands in India, road infrastructure being an integral part of economic development, accidents profoundly impact on the life of the common citizen. For a nation on the cusp of economic development, India can well avoid the tag of being the accident capital of the world. Our highways are expanding, as are the expressways. They provide seamless connectivity and unheralded opportunities for the growth of trade and industry and for the movement of goods, persons and capital. They are the backbone of the freedom of trade and W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 14 : commerce guaranteed by Art.301 of the Constitution. Our highways are dotted with sign boards warning of the dangers of combining speed and alcohol. Together, they constitute a heady cocktail. The availability of liquor along the highways is an opportunity to consume. Easy access to liquor shops allows for drivers of vehicles to partake in alcohol, in callous disregard to their own safety and the safety of others. The advisories of the Union government to the states are founded on a logical and sound rationale. 11. We are conscious of the fact that the policy of the Union government to discontinue liquor vends on National Highways may not eliminate drunken driving completely. A driver of a motor vehicle can acquire liquor even before the commencement of a journey or, during a journey at a place other than a National or State Highway. The law on preventing drunken driving also requires proper enforcement. Having said this, the court must accept the policy of the Union government for more than one reason. First and foremost, it is trite law that in matters of policy, in this case a policy on safety, the court will defer to and accept a considered view formed by an expert body. Second, as we have seen, this view of the Union government is based on statistics and data which make out a consistent pattern year after year. Third, the existence of liquor vends on highways presents a potent source for easy availability of alcohol. The existence of liquor vends; advertisements and sign boards drawing attention to the availability of liquor coupled with the arduous drives particularly in heavy vehicles makes it abundantly necessary to enforce the policy of the Union Government to safeguard human life. In doing so, the court W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 15 : does not fashion its own policy but enforces the right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution based on the considered view of expert bodies.” 24 We accordingly hereby direct and order as follows : 1. All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along National and State Highways; 2. The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority; 3. The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later than 1 April 2017; 4. All signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on national and State Highways; 5. No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a National or State Highway; (ii) directly accessible from a National or State Highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the National or State Highway or of a service lane along the Highway. 6. All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the state revenue and home departments. Responsibility shall be assigned inter alia to District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly monitored by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken. 7. These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution.” W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 16 : ## 21. However, the judgment was modified by the Apex Court in _**Arrive Safe Society**_ (supra) and at paragraph 7 it is held as follows: “7. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15 December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before the Court.” 22. Again, the judgment is modified in the _**State of Tamil Nadu**_ (supra) as per an order dated 23[rd] February, 2018. Paragraph 8 of the said order is relevant to the context and it reads thus: **“9.** Having regard to these directions, we are of the view that the State Governments would not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has been laid down by this Court in the order dated 11-7-2017 in _Arrive Safe Society_ (supra) should also apply to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities. We are inclined to allow the State Governments to make this determination since it is a question of fact as to whether an area covered by a local self-governing body is proximate to a municipal agglomeration or is sufficiently developed as to warrant the application of the same principle. In deciding as to whether the principle which has been set down in the order dated 11-July 2017 should be extended to a local self-governing body (or statutory W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 17 : development authority) the State Governments would take recourse to all relevant circumstances including the nature and extent of development in the area and the object underlying the direction prohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the State highways. The use of the expression “municipal areas” in the order dated 11 July 2017 does not prevent the State Governments from making that determination and from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the object of the orders passed by this Court. We leave it open to individual licensees to submit their representations to the competent authorities in the State Governments if they are so advised upon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the State Governments. We have issued this general direction to obviate both litigation before the High Courts and repeated recourse to applications to this Court.” 23. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the intervening petitioner, Sri Vinod Bhatt, submitted that, the judgment in _**K. Balu**_ (supra) rendered in 2016 with respect to the prohibition created for the conduct of liquor outlet even in Municipal areas through which a National Highway passes and that the modification made by the Apex Court in _**Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh**_ (supra) is only without disturbing the findings contained in the judgment of 2016, we are unable to agree with the said proposition, since the afore-extracted portion of the modified orders would make it clear, and clarifies that a liquor outlet within the municipal areas is permitted, even if the W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 18 : National Highway passes through the municipal area. This we say because, even though the modification sought was in respect of a situation prevalent in Chandigarh, Honourable Apex Court made it clear that the modification so made would apply to other municipal areas as well. 24. That apart, as per paragraph 8 extracted above, in the order dated 23.02.2018 in _**State of Tamil Nadu (**_ supra), the Apex Court further clarified that the State Government would be at liberty to take appropriate decisions consistent with the orders passed by the Apex Court, irrespective of the use of expression 'municipal areas' in the modification order dated 11[th] July, 2017. Therefore, in our view, this makes the position very clear in regard to the conduct of the liquor outlet in National Highways or service roads of the National Highways passing through municipal areas. Therefore, if the said contention of the intervenors is accepted, it absolutely makes the modified orders of the Apex Court nugatory. That said, when a judgment is modified interfering with the original findings and directions and that too, by a Bench of co-equal strength, the modified order necessarily will have to be followed . 25. Even though the learned Senior Counsel has advanced arguments that the trade license is issued by the Cochin Corporation in W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 19 : favour of one T. Rajesh, who is the manager of a Warehousing Corporation and therefore, the Beverages Corporation cannot conduct its business in the building in question, we are unable to sustain the arguments under law, basically for the reason that there is no specific requirement made under the Rules, 2011 that a trade license is to be issued in the name of the business enterprise itself, especially due to the fact that as per Form 1 appended to the Rules, the first entry to be made is the name of the person applying for the license and the second entry to be made is the name and details of the business establishment, and on a perusal of Exhibit R4(f) trade license so issued, it is quite clear and evident that the entries are made in that order only. Be that as it may, even though a faint contention is raised that schools, churches, and colleges are situated in the vicinity, no efforts are made to establish that such institutions are situated within the prohibited distance prescribed under the proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 2002 and therefore not entitled for any orders in that regard. 26. Therefore, we could not locate any illegality or any other legal infirmities in conducting the business in the shop in question. After analysing the facts and situation as above, we are of the clear opinion that the Public Interest Litigant has not made out any case for W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 20 : interference, either factually or legally. However, we make it clear that the 4[th] respondent Corporation shall ensure that no serpentine queue is formed outside the building and extending to the public road so as to cause inconveniences and difficulties to the public, pedestrians, and vehicular traffic. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, however subject to the above rider. sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.** sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.** _Rv_ W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 21 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22347/2021** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER APPEARED ON THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 7.8.2021. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3. - RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING NO.48/559-B1. - Exhibit R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING NO.48/559-B2. - Exhibit R6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.9.2021 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. - Exhibit R6(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THIS RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE. - Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2021 IN COC NO. 982/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - Exhibit R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SHOPS LACKING DESIRED FACILITIES AND REQUIRE RELOCATION, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE R3(g) IN THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.08.2021 IN COC NO. 982/2021. - Exhibit R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.10.2021 (RELEVANT PAGE) ISSUED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM (ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. - Exhibit R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE EXCISE LICENCE (RELEVANT PAGES) W.P.(C) No. 22347/2021 : 22 : RENEWED UPTO 31.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. Exhibit R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT (ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION) Exhibit R4(g) TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 16.09.2017, ACT 19 OF 2017, AMENDING THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT, (ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION) /True Copy/ PS to Judge. rv