High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-03-22Writ petitions dismissed; no interference with ...

W.P.(C).Nos. 8539 of 2019 & 8865 of 2019 — R. Reghu vs State of Kerala; M/S Hotel Vijaya Palace vs State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 8539 of 2019; WP(C).No. 8865 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2019-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions dismissed; no interference with Ext.P2 Prohibitory Order dated 15.03.2019 under Section 54 of the Abkari Act.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions dismissed; no interference with Ext.P2

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

R. Reghu
M/S Hotel Vijaya Palace, represented by its Managing Partner N. Vijayan Pillai

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Taxes (A) Department, Government Secretariat
Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kollam
District Collector and District Magistrate, Kollam
Commissioner of Police, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. Reghu — M.G. Karthikeyan (advocate); Nireesh Mathew (advocate)
• M/S Hotel Vijaya Palace — G. Harikumaran (Gopinath) (advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Manu Raj K.J, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions challenge Ext.P2 order dated 15.03.2019 under Section 54 of the Abkari Act, prohibiting liquor sales on 24–25 March 2019 during the Kottankulangara Devi Temple festival at Chavara, Kollam. WP(C).No. 8539/2019 concerns R. Reghu, proprietor of Hotel Regent Lake Palace; WP(C).No. 8865/2019 concerns M/S Hotel Vijaya Palace, Thattassery. Both hotels hold FL-3 licenses (Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953) with four- and three-star classifications respectively, and seek quashing of the prohibitory order and a mandamus permitting continuation of bar services during the festival. The respondents argue the order was issued on the basis of a police report and a complaint by the temple committee to safeguard public peace, and that the petitions are defective for non-joinder of the temple committee, a necessary party. The court relies on Thyagarajan D v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KHC 203) to emphasize compliance with directions and timing of Section 54 orders, notes prior practice, and ultimately finds non-joinder fatal. The petitions are dismissed, and Ext.P2 is not interfered with. The decision underscores the need for timely, justified prohibitory orders in sensitive festival contexts.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 54 of the Abkari ActRule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compliance with court directions and circulars governing public peace orders under Section 54 of the Abkari Act
Non-joinder of a necessary party doctrine (temple committee)
Public-peace rationale behind prohibitory orders under the Abkari Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that Ext.P2 prohibitory order has no basis since there had been no prohibitions during 2015–2018 and the 2014 order was stayed; non-joinder of the temple committee renders the petitions bad for lack of a necessary party. They highlight that the festival is a public event and that the court’s directions in Thyagarajan D require orders under Section 54 to be issued with due notice and in a timely manner, allowing legal remedies. They urge the Court to quash Ext.P2 and permit uninterrupted liquor service during the festival, stressing FL-3 licenses and absence of prior adverse consequences in recent years.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that Ext.P2 was issued following a police report and a complaint from the temple committee to ensure public peace during a sensitive procession. They rely on authorities including Thyagarajan D to justify the timing and basis of prohibitory orders and invoke guidelines that such orders should be issued in a timely manner and in compliance with government circulars. They emphasize the necessity of public safety and the temple festival’s peculiarities, and defend the non-joinder objection as a procedural defect that warrants dismissal of the petitions.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Thyagarajan D v. State of Kerala and others	2016 (1) KHC 203	Positive	Cited to endorse the principle that orders under Section 54 must follow court directions and established guidelines, including timing and adherence to circulars.
W.P.(C). Nos. 5748 of 2009 and 6149 of 2009	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced for background on court directions/circulars; not a direct holding relied upon in the dispositive reasoning.
W.P.(C). No. 23514/2013	—	Mentioned Only	Exhibited judgment; acknowledged as background material rather than a core precedent.
W.P.(C). No. 13987/2018	—	Mentioned Only	Exhibit illustrating prior orders; cited for context rather than for a holding.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C).Nos. 8539 of 2019 & 8865 of 2019 — R. Reghu vs State of Kerala; M/S Hotel Vijaya Palace vs State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 8539 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **R.REGHU AGED 57 YEARS S/O. PARUKUTTY AMMA, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL REGENT LAKE PALACE, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY., TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER ATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KOLLAM 691 001.** - **4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM 691 001.** - **5 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM 691 001.** **SRI MANU RAJ K.J, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019 ALONG WITH W.P.(C.) NO. 8865/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 8865 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M/S HOTEL VIJAYA PALACE, THATTASSERY, CHAVARA, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. N.VIJAYAN PILLAI.** **BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.** - **3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM-691001.** - **4 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691001.** ## **SRI MANU RAJ K.J, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, ALONG WITH W.P.(C.) NO. 8539/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 3 ## **JUDGMENT** - W.P.(C).No. 8539/2019: The petitioner, who is conducting a hotel 'Regent Lake Palace' at Neendakara, Kollam District on the strength of FL-3 license issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 with four star classification has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 15.03.2019 issued by the fourth respondent District Collector & District Magistrate, in exercise of the powers under Section 54 of the Abkari Act. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the bar conducted by the petitioner in his hotel, Hotel Regent Lake Palace, at Neendakara, is not liable to be closed on 24.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 in connection with the festival of Kottankulangara Devi Temple at Chavara in Kollam District; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the conduct of bar license in the hotel of the petitioner on 24.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 in connection with the festival of Kottankulangara Devi Temple, Chavara. On 20.03.2015, when this writ petition came up for admission, WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 4 the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. - 2. W.P.(C).No. 8865/2019: The petitioner, who is conducting a three star hotel at Thattassery in Chavara with FL-3 license issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 15.03.2019 of the fourth respondent and a declaration that the bar conducted by the petitioner in his hotel, Hotel Vijaya Palace, is not liable to be closed on 24.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 in connection with the festival of Kottankulangara Devi Temple at Chavara in Kollam District; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the conduct of bar license in the hotel of the petitioner on 24.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 in connection with festival of Kottankulangara Devi Temple, Chavara. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The common issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether any interference is WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 5 warranted on Ext.P2 order dated 15.03.2019 issued by the fourth respondent District Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Section 54 of Abkari Act, whereby prohibition of sale of liquor is imposed on 24.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 in connection with annual festival of Kottankulangara Devi Temple. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions would submit that, till 2014, there was no prohibitory orders under Section 54 of the Abkari Act, in connection with the aforesaid festival. In the year 2014, an order was passed by the fourth respondent District Magistrate prohibiting sale of liquor and the operation of that order was stayed by this Court by the order dated 21.03.2014 in W.P.(C.) No.8269/2014 (produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).No. 8539/2019). There was no prohibitory orders during the years 2015 to 2018 and as such, it is absolutely without any basis that the fourth respondent has issued Ext.P2 prohibitory order for the present year. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.8863/2019 would point out that by order dated 20.04.2018 in W.P.(C.)No. 13987/2018 (produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C.)No. 8863/2019) the prohibition imposed under Section WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 6 54 of the Abkari Act, for the liquor shops to function within three kilometers imposed by the District Magistrate in connection with the festival of Meda Thiruvathira in Kottarakkara Maha Ganapathi Temple, was reduced to two kilometers by this Court. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader, would point out that as can be seen from Ext.P2 order dated 15.03.2019, such a proceedings have been issued based on a complaint made by the Committee of Kottankulangara Devi Temple, Chavara, and that the petitioners have not chosen to implead the said Committee in these writ petitions. Therefore, these writ petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 8. In **Thyagarajan D v. State of Kerala and others (2016 (1) KHC 203),** a learned Judge of this Court has reiterated that an order under Section 54 of the Abkari Act ordering closure of shops for sake of public peace shall be passed in compliance of the directions of this Court in the various judgments and also following the circular issued by the Government in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2009 in W.P.(C) Nos.5748 of 2009 and 6149 of 2009. As per the instructions contained in the Circular issued, WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 7 an order under Section 54 of the Abkari Act shall be passed one week prior to the event in respect of which the same is issued in order not to stifle legal remedies available to those who may be aggrieved by such orders. 9. The interim order dated 21.03.2014 in W.P.(C.)No. 8269/2014 (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C.)No.8359/2019) was in the context of the challenge made against the prohibition order dated 18.03.2014, which was one issued few days prior to the date of prohibition. 10. The learned Government Pleader would point out that the fourth respondent District Magistrate has issued Ext.P2 prohibitory order based on the report of the District Police Chief, Kollam. A reading of the report of the District Police Chief, dated 15.03.2019 and also Ext.P2 order of the District Magistrate would show that such a prohibition has been imposed, considering the peculiar nature of the procession in connection with the temple festival. It was taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances that such an order has been passed by the fourth respondent. 11. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that the WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 8 petitioners will have to be non-suited on account of nonjoinder of necessary party i.e., the Committee of Kottankulangara Devi Temple, which has submitted a complaint before the fourth respondent District Magistrate. 12. In such circumstances, this Court finds that no interference is warranted on Ext. P2 prohibitory order issued by the fourth respondent District Magistrate Writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. **SD/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** DCS WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 9 ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).No.8539 OF 2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2014 IN WPC NO. 8269/2014 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKLM/2324/2019M5 DATED 15.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 7497/A2/09/TD DATED 29.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2018 IN WPC NO. 13987/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** WP(C).Nos. 8539 & 8865 of 2019 10 ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).No.8865 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FL-3 LICENSE(RENEWAL) DATED 01.04.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUECOPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKLM/2324/2019-M5 DATED 15.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2013 IN W.P.(C). NO. 23514/2013 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2018 IN WPC NO. 13987/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.**