The Kerala High Court directed the Excise Commissioner to decide access on inhibited distance as per Abkari Laws on presence of Temple near Bar.
The petitioner,M/s Iswarya Tourist Home Pvt Ltd, called into question order, issued by the 1st respondent – Excise Commissioner, whereby, their request for permission to install a gate on the western side of their property has been declined, citing the reason that said access will be within the inhibited distance as per the Abkari Laws, since there is a Temple right opposite to the building in question.
M.G.Karthikeyan – counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as it is evident from the sketches produced on record, even if permission is granted to his client, there would be no violation of the distance rule because, the crossing of the road between the Temple and the petitioner – Company is possible only at a Zebra Crossing, which has been provided at a distance away; and that the judgment of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v.Vijayakumar, would fortify this position.
P.S.Appu – Government Pleader, in response, submitted that, what the petitioner is now attempting to do is to create an artificial distance between the bar in question and the Temple, by saying that the Temple Road – which is situated between them cannot be crossed by a citizen, except at the Zebra Crossing, which is stated to be at a distance away.
It was further submitted that this proposition militates against commonsense and the Statutory Scheme; and therefore, that the Excise Commissioner was justified in not having acceded to the same in the order passed.
A Single Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that “ it is clear that it does not refer to any ‘Zebra Crossing’, as has been mentioned by the petitioner. This does not mean that this Court finds that there is any such Crossing, but only that even the contention in such regard has not been adverted to.”
“In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent Excise Commissioner, to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, adverting to all relevant aspects and the binding precedents, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment” the Court ruled.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
