Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2505
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
P.C.UNNIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/21806/2017
SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC R1 TO R3 BY SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SR. GP R4 TO R8 BY SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG
The court confirmed that NCC canteens qualify as military units for the issuance of liquor licenses under Rule 13(8) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, validating the state's licensing decisions.
Headnote:
Licensing - Public Interest Litigation - Abkari Act - Foreign Liquor Rules - Rule 13(8) - The court upheld the issuance of FL-8 licenses to NCC canteens, interpreting the definition of military units and confirming compliance with statutory provisions governing liquor sales.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former NCC employee, sought to cancel FL-8 licenses issued to NCC's unit run canteens, arguing that such licenses contravened the Abkari Act and Foreign Liquor Rules as NCC isn't classified as a military establishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the issuance of FL-8 licenses valid, as NAC canteens are operating under military supervision and the licenses comply with Rule 13(8) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, effectively dismissing the petitioner's claims.
Issues: Whether NCC canteens are eligible to hold FL-8 licenses under the Foreign Liquor Rules, given the petitioner's assertion that they do not qualify as military units under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that NCC, despite civilian officers, functions as an extension of the military, thus adheres to the requirements for issuing FL-8 licenses under the existing legal framework.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a former civilian employee of the National Cadet Corps (NCC) Department seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 i.e., the Principal Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram and the Commissioner of Excise, Excise Commissionerate, Thiruvananthapuram respectively to cancel the FL-8 Licences issued under the Foreign Liquor Rules in the name of Group Commanders/Canteen Officers functioning under the Additional Director General, NCC Directorate, Thiruvananthapuram—4th respondent, including respondents 5 to 8 who are Canteen Officers, NCC Group Headquarters, Thiruvananthapurm, Group Commander, NCC Group Headquarters, Kollam, the Office Commander, 24 Kerala Battalion NCC, Thrissur and the Commander, NCC Group Headquarters, Kozhikode District respectively, to sell liquor through the Unit Run Canteens in the Group Headquarters/Unit Officers of NCC Department in the State of Kerala; and for a writ of mandamus declaring that the Group Commanders/Canteen Officers of the NCC Group Headquarters/Unit Officers under the 4th respondent are not eligible to hold FL-8 licences.
2. The basic contention advanced by the petitioner is that the laudable object behind the creation of NCC is to inculcate spirit of nationalism, patriotism and discipline among the students, and in order to materialise those objectives, the NCC authorities are implementing various programmes among the students throughout the State.
3. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the petitioner in that regard is that in connection with the programmes, the NCC cadets will have to frequently visit the offices of NCC all over the State and in such a situation, the possibilities of those students coming in contact with the Unit Run Canteens in the NCC Offices cannot be ruled out. It is also contended that the possession, distribution and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the State of Kerala are regulated by the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules , and no person/authority in the State is legally entitled to sell liquor without a licence issued by the Excise Department under the / . According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 series of licence issued to various NCC Group units in the State would reveal that such licences are issued under Rule 13(8) of the Rules and it is explicit from the Rule that a licence under Rule 13(8) of the Rules can be issued only to Military Units and not to any other establishment.
4. The point that is raised by the petitioner is that NCC Department, being a creation of a statute, will not come under the definition of ‘military’, and therefore the Group Commanders/Canteen Officers of NCC units who are subordinates to the 4th respondent in whose names FL-8 Licences are issued by the Excise Department, even though they are military officials, are ineligible to hold such licences in the NCC office premises.
5. It is also pointed out that there are military canteens all over the State to cater to such needs of ex-service men and therefore, it is unnecessary to make use of Unit Run canteens in the NCC offices for the purpose of supplying liquor to the ex-service men. Therefore, in the above factual and legal circumstances, it was submitted by the petitioner that the licences are issued to the Unit Run Canteens as is evident from Ext. P1 series violating the provisions of Rule 13(8) and therefore, the same are liable to be interfered with.
6. A counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the State and its officials basically contending that in the licence itself there are strict regulations, stipulations, checks and control. The licence restricts the sale of liquor only at the Canteen/Mess. As per condition No. 3, liquor shall be sold, distributed or served only to Full Time Defence Personnel attached to the Unit mentioned in the condition at the scale fixed for each consumption in the premises. Liquor obtained under t
