Case Law Details
Syam R. Vs Excise Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
The case of Syam R. vs. Excise Commissioner, heard in the Kerala High Court, revolves around the petitioner’s plea to address a representation concerning the establishment of a liquor outlet near a forest area. The petitioner urges the competent authorities to consider the potential adverse effects of such an outlet on the environment and the surrounding community. Here’s a detailed summary of the case:
The petitioner, represented by counsel Sri. M. R. Dhanil, approached the court seeking direction for the competent authorities to address a representation (Ext.P1) submitted by him. The representation concerns the proposed establishment of a liquor outlet by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (the 6th respondent) in close proximity to a forest area. The petitioner expresses concerns about the potential negative consequences such an outlet could have on the environment, wildlife, and local community.
In response to the petitioner’s plea, Sri. P. S. Appu, representing the government, acknowledges that there is no legal impediment preventing the court from directing the consideration and disposal of the petitioner’s representation. However, he requests the court not to make any affirmative declarations regarding the petitioner’s entitlement to relief but instead leave the decision to the competent authority, ensuring it is made in accordance with the law.
Sri. T. Naveen, the standing counsel for the 6th respondent, states that his client does not oppose the consideration of the petitioner’s representation. However, he requests that it be addressed concurrently with the 6th respondent’s proposal for setting up the liquor outlet.
Considering the submissions from all parties involved, the court issues a judgment granting the petitioner’s plea. The court directs the 1st respondent, the Excise Commissioner, to take up the petitioner’s representation (Ext.P1) along with any application submitted by the 6th respondent regarding the establishment of the liquor outlet. The Excise Commissioner is instructed to dispose of both matters simultaneously after providing an opportunity for both sides to be heard. The court emphasizes the importance of expeditiously reaching a decision that will lead to an appropriate order and necessary action regarding the establishment of the liquor outlet near the forest area.
In conclusion, the judgment in Syam R. vs. Excise Commissioner demonstrates the judiciary’s role in safeguarding environmental concerns and ensuring that decisions regarding the establishment of potentially harmful facilities are made with careful consideration and adherence to the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner seeks that the competent among respondents be directed to take up Ext.P1 representation preferred by him and dispose it of, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. Sri. M. R. Dhanil – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that his client has been constrained to approach the respondents through Ext.P1 because, the 6th respondent – Kerala State Beverages Corporation is attempting to start a ‘liquor outlet’ very near to the forest area; and therefore, that it is certain to cause deleterious consequences.
3. In response Sri. P. S. Appu – learned Government Pleader, submitted that if this Court is only inclined to direct Ext.P1 representation of the petitioner to be taken up and disposed of, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on his entitlement to any relief and leave it to the competent Authority to take a final decision as per law.
4. Sri. T. Naveen – learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent, also submitted that his client will not stand in the way of Ext.P1 being considered; but prayed that it be done only along with the consideration of the proposal preferred by his client for setting up of the outlet.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 1st respondent – Excise Commissioner, to take up Ext.P1 representation of the petitioner, along with the application of the 6th respondent, if any; and to dispose of both simultaneously, after affording both sides an opportunity of being heard, thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible.
Author Bio
