It is hard to imagine that locals of the land flowing with coconut oil and wine, would be deprived of indulging in the latter. Well, they weren't really deprived of it, but, being asked to shell out Rs 50,000 (bribe excluded) and to wait nearly a month, just to serve liquor at a private function, seemed as good as deprivation.
Yet, that was how it was. Lawmen and excise officers would often barge into parties, in Kerala, and humiliate the host in front of his/her guests. Their charge? Not having purchased the temporary licence to serve liquor, under section 13(6) of the Foreign Liquor Rules (FLR).
Enter C.C. Thomas, designated senior lawyer of the Kerala High Court. Thomas's brother-in-law, Alex V. Chacko, sought to serve alcohol at his home, to celebrate the baptism of his grandson on June 25.
“It is a common practice for Knanaya Catholics to provide liquor for their guests at any function,” says Thomas. “It is extremely awkward if we don't do so, which meant the only option for my brother-in-law was to buy the licence.”
Chacko had earlier purchased the licence to host his daughter's betrothal ceremony in 2015 and was ready to do so again. But this time, he was stopped by his advocate brother-in-law. The lawyer had found something wanting in the execution of the rule.
Rule 13 of the FLR deals with the permits issued for the sale and distribution of liquor. While clauses 1 to 5 listed the different types of licences, clause six was a temporary licence given for the sale of alcohol on special occasions, charging Rs 50,000 per day.
“During the hearing, the government argued that we would be violating two laws. One, that we were serving liquor in a public place, which was a violation of section 15(c) of the Kerala Abkari Act, and two, that we would be gifting it, which was tantamount to sale without the licence,” said Thomas.
But, the court dismissed the contentions of the government, noting that holding a private function in one's backyard by constructing a marquee did not make it a public place.
Moreover, Thomas contested the second claim, saying that the FL-6 licence was applicable only for sale of alcohol. Since the host was merely serving alcohol and not parting with the possession, it did not make it a gift. The court upheld his claim.
The division bench, however, did point out that if the petitioner possessed alcohol in excess of the imposed restrictions, that the government would be allowed to take action.
A visibly pumped Thomas was ecstatic with the judgment, allowing him and his family to maintain the family tradition. “Not only was this licence being imposed wrongly, but it was also a long, arduous, and expensive process for those without connections in the excise department,” he said.
“Except for Gujarat and Bihar, such a rule is not applicable in other states. A lot of people in Kerala, especially from Kottayam, have been purchasing this licence without knowing that it was not applicable to them. This is definitely a landmark case, in that respect,” he said.
Chacko, the petitioner, declined to comment on his successful plea. But he is sure to be one happy grandfather on June 25.
