The court reaffirmed that speculation regarding potential misuse of judgments does not justify maintaining review petitions when no explicit directives exist.

O R D E R

The petitioners in these applications, filed for review of the judgment of this Court dated 05.07.2017, very interestingly, did not oppose the directions therein, but are seeming to support.

2. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in R.P.No.850/2021 and Sri.Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner in R.P.No.860/2021, submitted that the proximate cause for their clients to have approached this Court is because, under the guise of the directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed, the Exercise Commissioner and the State of Kerala are adopting a Policy which will lead to larger number of liquor outlets being opened in Kerala, thus causing cataclysmic havoc to its citizenry.

3. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, further argued that when the State was in lockdown, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and when every liquor outlet remained closed, the condition of its citizens were far better, with drunken revelry being unreported, the number of Crimes attenuating; and general law, order and peace being restored. He submitted that his client has, in fact, challenged the present liquor Policy of the Government of Kerala in a writ petition which was filed in the year 2017, and that the same is still pending before this Court.

4. As far as Sri.Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel for the petitioner in R.P.No.860/2021 is concerned, he made similar arguments as Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, but accused the Government of misinterpreting and misusing the observations and directions of this Court in judgment sought to be reviewed, to push forward their design of effacing the concept of prohibition and to fill the State with innumerable liquor outlets. He argued that, it is evident from the judgment sought to be reviewed that this Court intended no such, except that the collective dignity of the citizens of this State be protected from the unseemingly long queues in front of liquor outlets; and that, therefore, to avoid this, the Government is expected to take other necessary measures, rather than increase the number of liquor outlets.

5. Sri.Ranjith Thamban, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd., (BEVCO), submitted that these review petitions are not maintainable because, no additional outlet has yet been begun, though certain recommendations have been made by the Exercise Commissioner on his client's request. He submitted that, in any event of the matter, his client has not made any such request to the Exercise Commissioner based on the directions of this Court, but as an independent measure, since they are convinced that unless the number of outlets are increased, the rush in the present ones cannot be reduced.

6. Sri.S.Kannan, learned Government Pleader, adopted the submissions of Sri.Ranjith Thamban, learned Senior Counsel, as afore, and added that it is for the Government to take a Policy decision on reducing or enhancing the number of liquor outlets in the State, or even to accept the Policy of prohibition; and that the petitioners cannot force this Court, in an oblique manner through these review petitions - which are in any case not maintainable, to interfere with such decision making process. He then added that, these review petitions are incompetent, much less being totally non-maintainable, since they are not assailing the judgment of this Court, but are trying to supplement in an indirect manner.

7. I have considered the afore submissions with great amount of thought.

8. There can be no doubt that the review petitioners can obtain any cause to approach this Court in this manner only if they are able to establish that the directions in the judgment enable the Government, the BEVCO or any other Authority, to increase the liquor outlets in any manner whatsoever.

9. On the contrary, it is admitted by both Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj and Sri.Blaze K. Jose, that this Court has made no s