Procedure for Closing Down Foreign Liquor Shops or Beverages Outlets [Case Law]

Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (Kerala) - Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (Kerala) - Rule 7 (3) - Rules empowers the Commissioner of Excise to order any shops to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules empowers the Commissioner of Excise to order any shops to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency. Condition No.11 of the FL-1 licence issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules also empowers the Commissioner of Excise to order such closure. Moreover, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the privilege under FL-1 licence is intended to vend foreign liquor only in sealed bottles to the public and the liquor sold under the said licence shall not be allowed to be consumed in the premises. Therefore, the provisions under the Disposal Rules and that under Foreign Liquor Rules empower the Excise Commissioner to order any shops to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency. The local authority, i.e., Elampallur Grama Panchayat has passed Ext.P4 resolution unanimously on 03/04/2017, requesting the Government to shift the FL-1 Shop in question as it is causing threat to public peace and morality. If, as a matter of fact, the functioning of the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation is causing threat to public peace and morality and also inconvenience to the residents in the locality, the said FL-1 Shop is liable to be closed down under the relevant provisions of the Disposal Rules and also the Foreign Liquor Rules. The petitioners shall move a representation before the Excise Commissioner under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules read with Condition No.11 of the FL-1 licence issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, against the functioning of the FL-1 shop in question run by the Beverages Corporation, in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency, pointing out the specific instances in support of their claim, with supporting materials. If any such representation is received, the Excise Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to the petitioners and also to the Beverages Corporation, which is the licensee of the said FL-1 shop.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

W.P.(C).Nos.30294 & 35956 of 2017

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2018

PETITIONER(S) 

GANAPATHY IYER AND 2 OTHERS

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA 

RESPONDENTS

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

3. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691001.

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691001.

5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA R5 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T.(SC ) ADV.SRI C.S.VINODKUMAR (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER) 

J U D G M E N T 

W.P.(C)No.30294 of 2017:- The petitioners, who are residents of Perumpuzha (Ward No. 20 of Elampallur Panchayat) in Kollam District have approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to see that the Foreign Liquor 1 Shop (for brevity, 'FL-1 Shop') of the 5th respondent Kerala State Beverages Corporation (for brevity, Beverages Corporation') is stopped forthwith. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise to measure the distance from the gate/entrance of the Scheduled Caste colony to the gate of the FL-1 Shop run by the 5th respondent and to ensure that the said shop is closed down forthwith. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation dated 15/09/2017 submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate action against the 5th respondent for conducting the FL-1 Shop in Perumpuzha, after hearing the petitioners, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are opposed by the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise by filing a counter affidavit, producing therewith a copy of Ext.R3(a) order dated 23/09/2017, whereby a representation submitted by Smt. Syamala and others against the functioning of the FL-1 Shop of the 5th respondent Beverages Corporation stands rejected. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition.

3. The 5th respondent Beverages Corporation has also filed a counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith a copy of the order dated 23/09/2017 of the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise as Ext.R5(a). The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent.

4. During the pendency of this writ petition, by the order dated 23/10/2017 in I.A.No.16491 of 2017, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises in question and to file a report. Pursuant the said order, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises and submitted a report dated 13.11.2017.

5. W.P.(C)No.35956 of 2017:- The petitioners, who are also residents of Perumpuzha, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 23/09/2017 of the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise and seeking a declaration that the FL-1 Shop run by the 4th respondent Beverages Corporation (FL-1 Shop No.2002 in Sy.Nos.544/4/3 and 544/4/5 of Elampallur Village in Kollam Taluk) is liable to be closed down. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to close down the aforesaid FL-1 Shop; a declaration that the report dated 22/09/2017 of the 7th respondent Circle Inspector of Excise, referred to in Ext.P3 order, is erroneous, unjust, illegal and unsustainable; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation dated 06/11/2017 submitted by the 1st petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the Beverages Corporation.

7. The issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to close down FL- 1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation in Elampallur Village. The request made to close down the said shop has already been turned down by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise by the order dated 23/09/2017, which is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.35956 of 2017. However, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30294 of 2017 has not chosen to challenge the said order, by amending the writ petition.

8. In these writ petitions, the common case of the petitioners is that the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation is situated in an objectionable site, inasmuch as, it is at a distance of only 150 metres away from the Scheduled Caste colonies, namely, Kallumpuram Colony and Chirayil Puthuval Colony. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30294 of 2017 is residing 120 metres away from the Scheduled Caste colonies; the 2nd petitioner is residing 40 metres away from the FL- 1 Shop; and the 3rd petitioner is residing at a distance of 100 metres from that shop. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.35956 of 2017 are also residing near the FL-1 Shop and the 4th petitioner in that writ petition is a resident of the Scheduled Caste colony.

9. The petitioners would contend that the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation is functioning in violation of the provisions under the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for brevity, 'the Disposal Rules') and also the provisions under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The shop is situated on the side of a major district road having a width of only 30 metres. The parking of vehicles on both sides of the road, on account of the functioning of the FL-1 Shop, has reduced the width of the road available for traffic. Both sides of the road and the nearby area are now under the control of anti-social elements, which is causing serious hardships to women and children who pass through the said area. Further, consumption of liquor within the premises and the problems created by the drunkards are causing serious threat to women and children in the locality.

10. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.30294 of 2017 would contend that two Scheduled Caste colonies included in Ext.P1 list published by the Local Self-Government and also the Scheduled Caste Development Department, i.e., Kallumpurum Colony and Chirayil Puthuval Colony are situated near the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation. Some of the residents in those colonies and others had approached this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.13358 of 2017, 23547 of 2017 and 26426 of 2017 and connected cases and those writ petitions were disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 11/08/2017, whereby the petitioners therein were directed to make representations before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise was directed to consider those representations and pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to them and also to all concerned. In the said judgment it was made clear that, if the shop is running in a building within the objectionable distance, as is contended by the petitioners therein, immediate steps shall be taken to remove the same. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment one Syamala had approached the Deputy Commissioner of Excise by filing Ext.P3 representation dated 20/08/2017. Even prior to Ext.P2 judgment, Elampallur Grama Panchayat passed Ext.P4 resolution unanimously on 03/04/2017, requesting the Government to shift the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation as it is causing threat to public peace and morality. Relying on the documents placed on record, the petitioners would contend that the functioning of the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation and the parking of vehicles of the customers coming to that shop even from the neighbouring Panchayats are causing threat to public peace and morality and also causing inconvenience to the residents in the locality and as such, the shop is liable to be closed down.

11. The Shop run by the Beverages Corporation is an FL-1 Shop. Chapter VI of the Disposal Rules deals with general conditions applicable to licensees of toddy or FL-1 Shops. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, no licensee of any toddy or FL-1 Shop shall be permitted to sell or possess toddy or foreign liquor outside the local limit specified in his licence. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 mandates that, no toddy or FL-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. Further, no toddy shops shall be located within 400 metres and no FL-1 Shops shall be located within 200 metres from an educational institution, temple, church, mosque, burial ground and Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe colonies. In calculating the 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. As per the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, if any educational institution, temple, church, mosque, burial ground or Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe colonies come into existence subsequent to the grant of licence, it shall not disentitle such shops to continue. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules provides that, it shall be competent to the Commissioner of Excise to order the transfer of shops from one site or locality to another site or locality or to alter the specified limits of any shops even during the currency of the contract or to order any shops to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency and in such an event of transfer, alteration or closure, the contractor shall have no claim for compensation.

12. Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, deals with licenses for possession, use or sale of foreign liquor. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 13, which deals with FL-1 licence, the privilege of the sale under FL-1 licence shall be granted exclusively to the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd., Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., and the Kerala State Cooperative Consumer's Federation Ltd., at the rate of such rental as may be fixed by the Commissioner of Excise with the approval of the Government. The grant of privilege will be in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2001. The number of FL-1 Shops to be allotted to the above said Corporations or Federation, as the case may be, shall be decided by the Commissioner of Excise on the basis of the capacity and availability of shops space with each of them. The licence under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 shall be subject to the condition that the licensee has to procure his supplies to foreign liquor only from such FL-9 licensees in the State as may be permitted by the Excise Commissioner.

13. As provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the privilege under a licence under the said sub-rule is intended to vend foreign liquor only in sealed bottles to the public. The vending of foreign liquor in bottles of less than 180ml is prohibited. The liquor sold under FL-1 licence shall not be allowed to be consumed in the premises. The licensee is prohibited from selling foreign liquor to other licensees. The possession or sale at the licensed premises of any article or liquor other than that to which the licence relates is also prohibited.

14. As per the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, no FL-1 Shop 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 shops shall be located in or removed to a place within an area declared as project area and it shall not be located within 200 metres from any educational institution, temple, church, mosque, burial ground, Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes colonies. However, the Excise Commissioner, may, for sufficient reasons, to be recorded in writing, and subject to such conditions as he may deem necessary to impose, order to remove from any place, any FL-1 Shop to a place outside the limits specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 13. Clauses (a) to (d) of Note (1) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 define the terms 'educational institution', 'temple', 'church' and 'mosque'. As per Note (2), i n 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.

15. As per the Foreign Liquor Rules, an FL-1 licence shall be issued in 'Form FL-1', which stipulates various conditions to be observed by the licensee. As provided under condition No.11, it shall be competent to the Commissioner of Excise to order the transfer of shops from one site or locality to other site or locality during the currency of the contract or with previous sanction of Government to order any shop to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency and in such an event of transfer, alteration or closure, the contractor shall have no claim for compensation.

16. The provisions under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules and sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules make it explicitly clear that no FL-1 Shop shall be located within 200 metres from an educational institution, temple, church, mosque, burial ground and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe colonies. In calculating the 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. Similar provisions are there in sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. Subrule (3) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules empowers the Commissioner of Excise to order transfer of shops from one site or locality to another site or locality or to alter the specified limits of any shops even during the currency of the contract or to order any shops to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency. Condition No.11 of the FL-1 licence issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules empowers the Commissioner of Excise to order the transfer of shops from one site or locality to other site or locality during the currency of the contract or with previous sanction of Government to order any shop to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency. Further, the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules make it clear that, the privilege under FL-1 licence is intended to vend foreign liquor only in sealed bottles to the public. The vending of foreign liquor bottles of less than 180ml is prohibited and the liquor sold under FL-1 licence shall not be allowed to be consumed in the premises.

17. By the judgment dated 11/08/2017, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)Nos.13358 of 2017, 23547 of 2017 and 26426 of 2017, whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Excise was directed to consider the representation made by the petitioners therein, after affording them and also all concerned an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.35956 of 2017 are petitioners 2 to 5 in W.P.(C)No.26426 of 2017. One Shyamala, who is the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26426 of 2017, submitted a representation dated dated 24/08/2017, which was followed by another representation dated 19/09/2017, before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise on behalf of all the petitioners in that writ petition. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise conducted a personal hearing on 19/09/2017 and passed the order dated 23/09/2017, whereby the objections raised by the petitioners and other residents in the locality against the functioning of the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation stand rejected on the ground that the said shop is not situated within the objectionable distance, as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules or sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. Accordingly, the Beverages Corporation was permitted to conduct FL-1 Shop No.2002 in Elampallur Village in the very same premises.

18. A copy of the order dated 23/09/2017 of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise is placed on record as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.35956 of 2017. As per the said order, the Deputy Excise Commissioner conducted a personal hearing on 19/09/2017. The petitioners would contend that though they were called for personal hearing on 19/09/2017, they were not actually heard and no site inspection was conducted in their presence. As discernible from Ext.3 order, in order to arrive at a conclusion that the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation is not situated in an objectionable site, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise had relied on a report dated 22/09/2017 of the Circle Inspector of Excise, Kollam. The Deputy Commissioner obtained the said report only subsequent the personal hearing conducted on 19/09/2017. The contents of the said report were never made known to the petitioners or others, who have raised serious objections against the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation. Therefore, the materials collected in that inquiry, behind the back of the petitioners and others, do not have any value in the eye of law.

19. As discernible from Ext.P3 order dated 23/09/2017 of the Deputy Commissioner, in the report of the Circle Inspector of Excise dated 22/09/2017 the gate to gate distance measured from the gate of the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation to the house of one Podiyan with building No.E.P.XX/67, which is the first house on the side of the road leading to the Scheduled Caste colony, is 203 metres and as such, the FL-1 Shop is not situated in an objectionable site. The Advocate Commissioner deputed as per the order of this Court dated 23/10/2017 in I.A.No.16491 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.30294 of 2017, who conducted a site inspection on 03/10/2017, has submitted a report dated 13/11/2017, wherein it has been reported that the FL-1 outlet of the Beverages Corporation is at a distance of 199 metres to the beginning of the road leading to the Scheduled Caste colony and the distance upto the entrance of Podiyan's house, which is the first house in that colony is 202.2 metres. As evident from the photographs produced along with the report of the Advocate Commissioner, Podiyan's house did not have a compound wall. Instead, two large flex boards are erected on the southern boundary of his property and the entry to the said property is through the open space in between those two flex boards.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the FL-1 outlet of the Beverages Corporation is at a distance of only 199 metres to the beginning of the road leading to the Scheduled Caste colony, as found by the Advocate Commissioner in his report dated 13/11/2017 and as such, the FL-1 Shop is situated in an objectionable site. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have no case that the road in front of Podiyan's house is exclusively meant for the residents of the Schedule Caste colony. They have also no case that the residential buildings on either side of the road are part of that Scheduled Caste colony, which are owned and occupied by the members of Schedule Caste community. In paragraph 10 of the report, the Advocate Commissioner has noticed that the plots and buildings on the southern side of the road are not part of the Schedule Caste colony.

21. Therefore, the pleadings and materials on record would show that the road in front of Podiyan's house is not exclusively meant for the residents of the Schedule Caste colony and as such, the said road cannot be treated as part of the said colony. If that be so, the gate to gate distance from the Scheduled Caste colony to the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation cannot be measured from the beginning of the road leading to that colony to the gate of the FL-1 Shop. Since the plots and buildings on the northern side of the road alone are part of the Schedule Caste colony, the gate to gate distance for the purpose of sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules or Note (2) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules has to be measured from the gate/entrance of the first residential house or the first plot in that colony to the gate of the FL-1 Shop.

22. As evident from the photographs produced along with the report of the Advocate Commissioner, two large flex boards are erected on the southern boundary of Podiyan's property and the entry to the said property is through the open space in between those two flex boards. For the purpose of measuring gate to gate distance under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules or Note (2) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the said open space can be treated as the gate/entrance of the first residential house in that Colony. If that be so, conclusion is irresistible that the FL-1 Shop run by the Beverages Corporation, which is situated at a distance of 202.2 metres from the entrance of Podiyan's house, is not in an objectionable site. Though the finding in Ext.P3 order dated 23/09/2017 of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, relying on the report dated 22/09/2017 of the Circle Inspector of Excise, that the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation is at a distance of 203 metres is in violation of the principles of natural justice, no interference of this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted, in view of the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 13/11/2017, wherein it has been reported that the FL-1 Shop is at a distance of 202.2 metres to the entrance of Podiyan's house, which is the first house in that colony.

23. The concept of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India reads thus; 

“21. Protection of life and personal liberty.- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” 

24. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [(1981) 1 SCC 608] the Apex Court held that, the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is the most precious human right and which forms the ark of all other rights must be interpreted in a broad and expensive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality which may endure for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person. The Apex Court held further that, the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.

25. In Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 761] the Apex Court reiterated that, the Constitution of India guarantees human rights that are contained in Part III with the caption 'Fundamental Rights'. One such right enshrined in Article 21 is right to life and liberty. Right to life is given a purposeful meaning by the Court to include right to live with dignity. It is the purposive interpretation which has been adopted by the Court to give a content of the right to human dignity as the fulfillment of the constitutional value enshrined in Article 21. Thus, human dignity is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal.

26. According to the petitioners, the parking of vehicles on both sides of the road, on account of the functioning of the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation has reduced the width of the road available for traffic and that, both sides of the road and the nearby area are now under the control of anti-social elements, which is causing serious hardships to women and children who pass through the said area. Further, consumption of liquor within the premises and the problems created by the drunkards are causing serious threat to women and children in the locality. The petitioner would also point out that, Elampallur Grama Panchayat has passed Ext.P4 resolution unanimously on 03/04/2017, requesting the Government to shift the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation as it is causing threat to public peace and morality.

27. The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35956 of 2017 has submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 06.11.2017 before the Secretary to Government, Department of Excise, wherein it has been pointed out that both sides of the road and the nearby area are now under the control of anti-social elements which is causing hardships to the women and children who passes through the said area. However, a reading of Ext.P3 order and also the objections filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise would not indicate as to whether such a contention was pressed into service before the said respondent when the matter was pending consideration. In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise warrants no interference.

28. As already noticed, sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules empowers the Commissioner of Excise to order any shops to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency. Condition No.11 of the FL-1 licence issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules also empowers the Commissioner of Excise to order such closure. Moreover, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the privilege under FL-1 licence is intended to vend foreign liquor only in sealed bottles to the public and the liquor sold under the said licence shall not be allowed to be consumed in the premises.

29. Therefore, the provisions under the Disposal Rules and that under Foreign Liquor Rules empower the Excise Commissioner to order any shops to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency. The local authority, i.e., Elampallur Grama Panchayat has passed Ext.P4 resolution unanimously on 03/04/2017, requesting the Government to shift the FL-1 Shop in question as it is causing threat to public peace and morality. If, as a matter of fact, the functioning of the FL-1 Shop of the Beverages Corporation is causing threat to public peace and morality and also inconvenience to the residents in the locality, the said FL-1 Shop is liable to be closed down under the relevant provisions of the Disposal Rules and also the Foreign Liquor Rules.

In such circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions; 

(i) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioners shall move a representation before the Excise Commissioner under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Disposal Rules read with Condition No.11 of the FL-1 licence issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, against the functioning of the FL-1 shop in question run by the Beverages Corporation, in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency, pointing out the specific instances in support of their claim, with supporting materials.

(ii) If any such representation is received, the Excise Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to the petitioners and also to the Beverages Corporation, which is the licensee of the said FL-1 shop.

(iii) Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation.