W.P.(C) Nos. 11249 & 11252 of 2017 (B. Chandra Bose & others) v. State of Kerala & others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 11249 of 2017** |**PETITIONER**<br>**:**|**PETITIONER**<br>**:**|**PETITIONER**<br>**:**|| |---|---|---|---| ||||**B. CHANDRA BOSE**| ||||**S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR,**| ||||**AGED 56 YEARS**| ||||**MUTHANGASSERI HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR PO,**| ||||**KOTHAMANGALAM**| ||||**BY ADVS.**| ||||**SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)**| ||||**SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH**| ||||**SMT.AKHILASREE BHASKARAN**| ||||**SRI.M.V.SABU**| ||||**SRI.T.P.JOSEPH**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|||| |**1**|||**STATE OF KERALA**| ||||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||||**DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN**| ||||**695003**| |**2**|||**THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE**| ||||**ERNAKULAM, PIN 682018**| |**3**|||**GEORGE MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,**| ||||**AGED 61 YEARS**| ||||**AGED 61, PARAPPATT HOUSE,**| ||||**VETTAMPARA, PINDIMANA, KOTHAMANGALAM,**| ||||**PIN 686692**| |**4**|||**SARAMMA BINU, W/O.LATE BINU,**| ||||**AGED 53 YEARS**| ||||**PARAPPATT HOUSE,VETTAMPARA,**| ||||**PINDIMANA, KOTHAMANGALAM,**| ||||**PIN 686692**| W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 2 **5 ELDO K THOMAS S/O.THOMAS, AGED 60, KAVUGUMPILLIL HOUSE,CHELAD PO, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686681 6 K.J. VARGHESE AGED 63 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 63, KUNNATH HOUSE,CHELAD PO, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN 686681** **BY ADVS. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN R4 BY SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2018, ALONG WITH WPC No.11252/2017, THE COURT ON 16.08.2018, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 3 ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)Nos.11249 and 11252 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 16[th] DAY OF AUGUST, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** **W.P.(C)No.11249 of 2017:** The petitioner who is the licencee of toddy shop Nos.1 to 5 of Group No.I of Kothamangalam Excise Range has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ernakulam to renew the licence to conduct toddy shop Nos.1 and 5 of Group No.I of Kothamangalam Excise Range in building bearing Nos.IV/2A and V/163 respectively of Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat, for the period extended as per Ext.P3 communication dated 27.03.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise. 2. On 30.03.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice by special messenger was ordered to respondents 3 to 6. This Court granted an interim order to the effect that the licence of the W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 4 petitioner shall be renewed provisionally without insisting for the consent of the landlord, if the application for renewal is otherwise in order. 3. The interim order of this Court dated 30.03.2017 was under challenge before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1295 of 2017 filed by the 4[th] respondent. Taking note of the fact that the said order is an ex parte interim order passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting the writ petition, the Division Bench by judgment dated 28.06.2017 disposed of W.A.No.1295 of 2017, giving liberty to the 4[th] respondent to move the learned Single Judge for getting the order vacated. 4. The 4[th] respondent filed counter affidavit in the writ petition, opposing the reliefs sought for. On 02.04.2018, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6369 of 2018 seeking an order directing the 2[nd] respondent to extend the licence of toddy shop Nos.1 and 5 of Group No.I of Kothamangalam Excise Range in building Nos.VI/2A and V/163 respectively of Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat, without insisting for the consent of the landlord. Such an application was made on the ground that respondents 1 and 2 have granted further extension of the period of licence of the existing toddy shops, in W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 5 continuation of Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2017. 5. The 4[th] respondent opposed the reliefs sought for in I.A.No.6369 of 2018 by filing a counter affidavit dated 04.04.2018. After considering the rival contentions, this Court by order dated 05.04.2018 held that the petitioner is also entitled to extension of licence for a period of three months as in the case of all other toddy shop licensees, in terms of Government order dated 24.03.2018. 6. During the pendency of this writ petition, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P7 Government order dated 27.06.2018 extending the period of licence of existing toddy shops for a further period of nine months from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019. Pursuant to the said Government order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application dated 28.06.2018 before the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter, moved I.A.No.11602 of 2018 seeking an order directing the 2[nd] respondent to extend the licence of toddy shop Nos.1 and 5 of Group No.I of Kothamangalam Excise Range in building Nos.IV/2A and V/163 respectively of Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat without insisting the consent of the landlord. The 4[th] respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 06.07.2018 opposing the reliefs W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 6 ## sought for in that interlocutory application. 7. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent wherein it has been stated that by G.O. (MS)No.25/2018 dated 24.03.2018 the licence of the toddy shops were extended for a period of three months from 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018. As per the order of this Court dated 05.04.2018, the licence of toddy shop Nos.1 and 5 was extended upto 30.06.2018. Thereafter, by G.O.(MS)No.48/2018/TD dated 27.06.2018, the Government have decided to extend the existing licenses of toddy shops for a further period of nine months from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019. On the basis of the said Government order, the toddy shop licence and privilege of toddy shop Nos.2 to 4 in Group No.I of Kothamangalam Range has already been extended for the remaining period of 2018-19. Toddy shop Nos.1 and 5 which were functioning in building Nos.IV/2A and V/163 respectively of Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat are not functioning since 01.07.2018 since the building was jointly owned by respondents 3 to 6 and going by the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, written consent/lease deed from the owner of the land/building is mandatory. W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 7 8. **W.P.(C)No.11252 of 2017:** The petitioner who is the licencee of toddy shop No.17 of Group No.IV of Kothamangalam Excise Range has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ernakulam to renew the licence to conduct toddy shop No.17 of Group No.IV of Kothamangalam Excise Range in building bearing Nos.II/168, 168A and 169 of Pindimana Grama Panchayat, for the period extended as per Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise. 9. On 30.03.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice by special messenger was ordered to respondents 3 to 5. This Court granted an interim order to the effect that the licence of the petitioner shall be renewed provisionally without insisting for the consent of the landlord, if the application for renewal is otherwise in order. 10. The 3[rd] respondent filed counter affidavit in the writ petition, opposing the reliefs sought for. On 02.04.2018, the W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 8 petitioner filed I.A.No.6368 of 2018 seeking an order directing the 2[nd] respondent to extend the licence of toddy shop No.17 of Group No.IV of Kothamangalam Excise Range in building Nos.II/168, 168A and 169 of Pindimana Grama Panchayat, without insisting for the consent of the landlord. Such an application was made on the ground that respondents 1 and 2 have granted further extension of the period of licence of existing toddy shops, in continuation of Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2017. 11. The 3[rd] respondent opposed the reliefs sought for in I.A.No.6368 of 2018 by filing a counter affidavit dated 04.04.2018. After considering the rival contentions, this Court by order dated 05.04.2018 held that the petitioner is also entitled to extension of licence for a period of three months as in the case of all other toddy shop licensees, in terms of Government order dated 24.03.2018. 12. During the pendency of this writ petition, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P6 Government order dated 27.06.2018 extending the period of licence of existing toddy shops for a further period of nine months from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019. Pursuant to the said Government order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** application dated 28.06.2018 before the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter moved I.A.No.11584 of 2018 seeking an order directing the 2[nd] respondent to extend the licence of toddy shop No.17 of Group No.IV of Kothamangalam Excise Range in building Nos. II/168, 168A and 169 of Pindimana Grama Panchayat without insisting the consent of the landlord. The 3[rd] respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 06.07.2018 opposing the reliefs sought for in that interlocutory application. 13. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent wherein it has been stated that by G.O. (MS)No.25/2018 dated 24.03.2018 the licence of the toddy shops were extended for a period of three months from 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018. As per the order of this Court dated 05.04.2018, the licence of toddy shop No.17 was extended upto 30.06.2018. Thereafter, by G.O.(MS)No.48/2018/TD dated 27.06.2018, the Government have decided to extend the existing licenses of toddy shops for a further period of nine months from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019. Toddy shop No.17 which was functioning in building No.II/168, 168A and 169 of Pindimana Grama Panchayat is not functioning since 01.07.2018. Since the buildings are jointly W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 10 owned by the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and going by the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, written consent/lease deed from the owner of the land/building is mandatory. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the party respondents. 15. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the petitioners in these writ petitions are licencees of toddy shops in Group No.I and Group No.IV respectively of Kothamangalam Excise Range. Toddy shop Nos.1 and 5 of the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.11249 of 2017 were conducted in rented buildings bearing Nos.IV/2A and V/163 respectively of Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat, which is jointly owned by respondents 3 to 6 therein, which was originally owned by one Sunny Varghese. Similarly, toddy shop No.17 of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.11252 of 2017 was conducted in building No.II/168, 168A and 169 of Pindimana Grama Panchayat jointly owned by the petitioner, his brother late Binu and respondents 3 to 5. After the death of Binu, his wife Saramma W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 11 Binu and respondents 4 and 5 gave consent to the petitioner to conduct toddy shop for the years 2014-17. 16. Chapter II of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for brevity 'the Disposal Rules') deals with disposal of shops. As per clause (a) of Rule 2 of the Disposal Rules, 'abkari shop' or 'shop' means a toddy shop or a Foreign Liquor-I shop. As per subrule (1) of Rule 3 of the Disposal Rules, the privilege of vending toddy in any manner for any period in any of the independent toddy shops as may be decided by the Government from time to time, within the Range or Taluk as may be notified in the gazette, shall be put to public sale, shop by shop or in lot or group by group or range-wise or taluk-wise by the District Collector or by the Joint Commissioner of Excise or by any other officer authorised by the Government in that behalf to individuals or group of individuals or Toddy Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society at such date or dates and at such place or places as may be fixed from time to time, for a fixed annual rental as licence fee as may be decided by the Government. Going by the first proviso sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, it shall be lawful for the Government to extend by notification in the official gazette the period of privilege sold under W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 12 sub-rule (1) for any further period, subject to such conditions as the Government may impose. 17. Chapter VI of the Disposal Rules deals with general conditions applicable to the licencees of toddy or Foreign Liquor-I shops. Rule 7 provides that the licencees of toddy or Foreign Liquor-I shops shall be subject to the general conditions enumerated in sub-rules (1) to (38) of the said Rule. As per subrule (4) of Rule 7, toddy or foreign liquor, as the case may be, shall be sold only in a suitable building of which the whole or a whole of a separate part shall be exclusively set apart for use as a shop. As per the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 7, the grantee of privilege, while applying for grant/renewal of licence shall produce before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise concerned, the written consent/ lease deed from the owner of land/building where a toddy shop is proposed to be licensed. 18. Relying on the judgment of this Court in **Shajahan M.I. v. Alice George and others [2015 (1) KHC 811]** , and a judgment of the Apex Court in **Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and another [(2016) 14 SCC 263]** , the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that consent of W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 13 the landlord is not required either for renewal of a toddy shop licence granted under Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules or for its extension based on the orders issued by the Government, invoking its powers under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Disposal Rules. 19. The decision of this Court and that of the Apex Court referred to supra are in the context of sub-section (3) of Section 492 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Section 492 of the said Act deals with general provisions regarding licenses and permissions. Sub-section (3) of Section 492 provides that, where any person intending to obtain a licence or permission for the first time and where the applicant is a person other than the owner of the premises in question, he shall, along with the application, produce the written consent of the owner of the premises and the period of the licence shall not exceed the period, if any, specified in the consent. Sub-section (4) of Section 492 provides further that where the applicant seeking renewal of a licence or permission in respect of a trade or business, licensed in the premises mentioned in sub-section (3) is a person different from the original licensee or not the legal heir of the original licensee, the consent of the owner W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 14 shall be required. 20. After referring to the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 492 of the Municipality Act, this Court in **Shajahan's case (supra)** held that if the person seeking licence is not the owner of the property, it is mandatory that he should get the consent of the landlord, lest, it should lead to ramp trespassers establishing business in the premises unconnected to them, leading to chaotic conditions involving not only the landlords but also the civic authority, the Municipality. On the other hand, once consent is obtained by the licensee, and that licensee continues as the lessee of the demised premises, even beyond the lease period, his possession does not per se become illegal. He may be either a tenant at sufferance or a tenant at will, as the case may be. Subsection (3) of Section 492 of the Municipality Act, ensures that the prospective licensee's initial entry into a particular place of business, a building, is lawful. 21. In **Sudhakaran's case (supra)** , after referring to the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 492 of the Municipality Act, and also the provisions under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the Apex Court held that the requirement W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 15 of consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first time. Renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, during the currency of the tenancy, does not require consent of landlord. Even in the case of application for obtaining licence for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent. Valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant. 22. In the instant case, the provisions under sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules referred to hereinbefore would show that written consent/lease deed from the owner of land/building where a toddy shop is proposed to be licensed, is a mandatory requirement for grant/renewal of licence of a toddy shop. In the case of the petitioners, they were licencees of the toddy shops in question in Group No.I and Group No.IV respectively in Kothamangalam Excise Range, which were valid upto 31.03.2018. In exercise of the powers under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Disposal Rules, the Government by G.O. (Ms)No.25/2018/TD dated 24.03.2018 extended the licence of the W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 16 existing toddy shops for period of three months from 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018 and the said period was further extended by G.O. (Ms)No.48/2018/TD dated 27.06.2018 for nine months from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019. Based on the Government notification extending the period of licence of the existing toddy shops from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017, the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise issued Ext.P3 communication dated 27.03.2017 to all Circle Inspectors of Excise to forward the applications made by the licensees of toddy shops, along with the consent letter from the owner of the building in which that toddy shop situates. The extension granted by the Government in exercise of its powers under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Disposal Rules would result in renewal of the respective toddy shop licence, issued under Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules based on the application made by the respective licensee, for the period specified in the notification issued by the Government. Therefore, the provisions under the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules will be attracted even in an application filed in terms of the Government notification extending the period of licence granted to existing toddy shops. W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 17 23. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.11249 of 2017 had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.7825 of 2016 challenging the order of the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, whereby, his application for renewal of licence to conduct toddy shop in builiding Nos.IV/2A and V/163 of Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat for the period till 31.03.2017 stands rejected. By Ext.P2 judgment dated 28.03.2016, the said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order of the 2[nd] respondent rejecting the application for renewal of toddy shop licence for the year 2016-17 and the 2[nd] respondent was directed to renew the licence of toddy shop Nos.1 and 5 of Group No.I in Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat for the year 2016-17. In Ext.P2 judgment, this Court held that going by the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules, if consent had been granted to conduct toddy shop for a specified period, there is no requirement of consent for every year till expiration of the specific period. This Court held further that, the building owner has no right to raise any objection against the conduct of toddy shop, till the expiration of the specified period, for which he had already granted consent. In Ext.P2 judgment, this Court has made it clear that for further renewal, a fresh consent is W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 18 required. Similarly, W.P.(C)No.7768 of 2016 filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.11252 of 2017 was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 28.03.2016, whereby the order dated 25.02.2016 of the 2[nd] respondent rejecting the application made by the petitioner for renewal of licence for the year 2016-17 was set aside and the said respondent was directed to renew the licence of the petitioner in respect of toddy shop No.17 of Group No.IV of Kothamangalam Excise Range till 31.03.2017. In the said judgment also, it was made clear that for further renewal after 2017, fresh consent of all the co-owners is required. In the absence of any challenge by the petitioners, Ext.P2 judgments of this Court in W.P.(C)No.7725 of 2016 and W.P.(C)No.7768 of 2016 have attained finality. 24. The learned counsel for the party respondents would point out that the only relief sought for in the respective writ petitions is a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise to renew licence to the petitioner to conduct their toddy shops in Group No.I and Group No.IV respectively of Kothamangalam Excise Range for the period extended by Ext.P3 order dated 23.07.2017. Ext.P3 order of the 2[nd] respondent is one issued in terms of G.O.(Ms)No.14/2017/TD W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 19 dated 17.03.2017 and G.O(ms)No.16/2017/TD dated 25.03.2017, whereby the Government, in exercise of its powers under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Disposal Rules extended the period of licence of the existing toddy shops till 30.06.2017. At the time of admission of the respective writ petitions, on the strength of Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent, this Court granted interim order dated 30.03.2017 ordering renewal of the respective licenses, provisionally, without insisting the consent of the landlord, if the application is otherwise in order. When the Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.18/2018/TD dated 24.03.2018, whereby the period of licence of the existing toddy shops were extended for a period of three months from 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018, I.A.No.6368 of 2018 was filed in W.P.(C)No.11252 of 2017 and I.A.No.6369 of 2018 was filed in W.P.(C)No.11249 of 2017 seeking extension of licence of the respective toddy shops for the period upto 30.06.2018. Such applications were filed even without amending the respective writ petitions with appropriate pleadings and reliefs, since the only relief sought for in those writ petitions is renewal of licence for the extended period as per Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2012 of the 2[nd] respondent, i.e., upto W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 20 30.06.2017. Similarly, when the period of licence of existing toddy shops is extended for a further period of nine months from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019, I.A.No.11602 of 2018 in W.P. (C)No.11249 of 2017 and I.A.No.11585 of 2018 in W.P. (C)No.11252 of 2017 are filed seeking extension of licence of the respective toddy shops for the period upto 31.03.2019 and these interlocutory applications are also filed without amending the writ petition with appropriate pleadings and reliefs. 25. In **Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534]** , the Apex Court held that when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out in this regard there is a distinction between a pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 21 i.e., a plaint or written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded; in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in **Bharat Sing's case (supra)** is relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in **Shaji T.G. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others (2017 (3) KHC 456)** , a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the party respondents. 26. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in **State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Narmada Estates Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 12 SCC 419]** , the learned counsel for the party respondents would contend that in the absence of any relief sought for in the writ petitions, the petitioner in the respective writ petitions is not entitled for extension of licence of the respective toddy shops for the period till 31.03.2019. 27. As already noticed, the only relief sought for in the respective writ petitions is renewal of licence of the respective toddy shops for the period extended as per Ext.P3 order dated 23.07.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, i.e., till 30.06.2017. In the absence of any application for W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 22 amendment of the respective writ petitions with appropriate pleadings and reliefs, the petitioner cannot seek interim reliefs beyond the scope of the main relief sought for in the writ petitions. In **Meena Chaudhary v. Commissioner of Delhi Police [(2015) 2 SCC 156]** , the Apex Court held that the scope of an interlocutory application cannot be greater in scope than the main appeal. 28. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted in these writ petitions by directing the 2[nd] respondent to grant extension of licence of the respective toddy shops in Group No.I and Group No.IV of Kothamangalam Excise Range for the period from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019, in terms of the extension granted by the Government vide G.O.(Ms)No.48/2018/TD dated 27.06.2018. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C)Nos.11249 & 11252 of 2017 23 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/LETTER DATED 24.02.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2016 IN WPC.NO.7825/2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 27.03.2017 OF THE 3RD, 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 27.03.2017 OF THE 3RD 5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR LICENCE DATED 27.3.2018 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF GO(MS)NO.48/2018/TAXES DEPT. DT.27.6.2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR LICENCE DT.28.6.18 OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXHIBIT R4(1) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 'NIL' EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(2) TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 28.03.2017 EXHIBIT R4(1) TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DT.28.3.2017 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **dsn**