AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, who is the Manager of a Vocational Higher Secondary School, has 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 3 not to grant licence for opening a Foreign Liquor Shop at Building No.1/668 of the Karavaram Grama Panchayath or to any other place in violation of Rule 13(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 representation.
On 14.12.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent sought time to get instructions. Thereafter, on 19.12.2017, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to respondents 3 and 4. The learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 2nd respondent. On the said date, I.A.No.20753 of 2017 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the proposed site of FL-3 shop of the 2nd respondent Corporation in Building No.1/688 of the Karavaram Grama Panchayat to the nearby Temples, Educational Institutions and Anganavadis, was allowed and Adv.Sri.P.E.Sajal was appointed as the Advocate Commissioner. The learned Advocate Commissioner has filed a report dated 04.01.2018, which is already placed on record.
Respondents 3 and 4 have also filed counter affidavits.
During the pendency of this writ petition, pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.R4(a) judgment of this Court in W.P. (C).No.3934 of 2017, the 1st respondent Excise Commissioner considered the objection raised by some of the residents of the locality against the functioning of the FL-1 shop of the 2nd respondent Corporation in Building No.1/668 of the Karavaram Grama Panchayath. Now the 1st respondent Excise Commissioner has already passed an order dated 19.02.2018.
Today, when the case is taken up for further consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order of the 1st respondent in appropriate proceedings, this writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving the aforesaid right of the petitioner. All legal and factual contentions raised by both sides are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum.