Saju, vs State of Kerala,

SAJU, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2020

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1759765

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1759765
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan
Decided On: Jun 30, 2020
Case Number: WP(C)/8290/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SAJU,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....k.p. by sr.government pleader:smt.sheeja.c.s this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on 30.06.2020, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentrespondents 6 and 7 are the licensees of a toddy shop. the petitioner alleges that though in violation of rule 7(23) of the kerala abkari shops (disposal) rules, 2002, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 whereby, the petitioner was to conduct business as a benami of respondents 6 and 7. subsequently, the relationship fell through. according to the petitioner, thereafter, respondents 6 and 7 are adopting the same procedure and is conducting the business through 8th respondent as a benami.2. alleging conduct of business in violation of therules, the petitioner has filed ext.p1 complaint before respondents 2 to 5. the petitioner seeks for a direction for consideration of the same. the petitioner admittedly being a party to the illegal transactions, has no right to seek for invocation of the discretionary jurisdiction of this court. if there is any statutory violation, it is for the statutory authorities to look into the same. no directions in the said regard are called for. the writ petition is dismissed. sd/- sathish ninan judge rsr appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: exhibit p1 true photocopy of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dated 27/02/2020. exhibit p2 true photocopy of the postal receipts.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1942 PETITIONER: SAJU, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PAINADATH HOUSE, KIDANGOOR (P.O.), THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TLAUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SEBIN SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEAD QUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033. 3 THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT), PIN - 695 033.
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018. 5 VIGILANCE OFFICER (EXCISE), PIN - 695033. 6 MANJULA NARAYANAN, W/O.LATE K.NARAYANAN, KOLLENTEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM (P.O.)., ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 7 SUDHI, S/O.DHARMAJAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE, CHENNAMANGALAM (P.O.), PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 8 SOORAJ P.S., S/O.SOMAN, PARASSERY HOUSE, NORTH PARAVUR (P.O.), PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT R6-8 BY ADV. SHRI.BALAMURALI K.P. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SMT.SHEEJA.C.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Respondents 6 and 7 are the licensees of a Toddy Shop. The petitioner alleges that though in violation of Rule 7(23) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal) Rules, 2002, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 whereby, the petitioner was to conduct business as a benami of respondents 6 and 7. Subsequently, the relationship fell through. According to the petitioner, thereafter, respondents 6 and 7 are adopting the same procedure and is conducting the business through 8th respondent as a benami.

2. Alleging conduct of business in violation of the

rules, the petitioner has filed Ext.P1 complaint before respondents 2 to 5. The petitioner seeks for a direction for consideration of the same. The petitioner admittedly being a party to the illegal transactions, has no right to seek for invocation of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. If there is any statutory violation, it is for the statutory authorities to look into the same. No directions in the said regard are called for. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE rsr APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/02/2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties SAJU, vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan