IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3910 of 2009(M)
1. JANEESH P.S, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MOHANAN, AGED 53 YEARS,S/O. SAHADEVAN
3. ANANDAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN
4. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
5. BINU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
... Respondent
2. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER
3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
5. N.RAJAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.3910 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are accused nos. 2 to 6 in C.R No.59/2008
registered by the Karunagapally Excise Range. On that ground,
though the toddy shops bearing Nos. 33,35, 36, 44 45and 46 in
group no. VIII of Karunagapally Excise Range for the Abkari year
2008-2009 were allotted to them, licence was not issued. It is stated
by the petitioners that even as of now, the Court has not framed
charge in the case mentioned above. The petitioners state, relying on
Exhibit P5 judgment interpreting clause (11) of Exhibit P4 policy
framed by the Government, that unless charge has been framed by
the Court for an Abkari offence against a person in terms of
section 211 of the Cr.P.C., he cannot be excluded from being
granted licence, on a ground referable to any allegation against him
as to the commission of any offence punishable under the Abkari
law.
2. On this basis, petitioners submit that the preferential
W.P.(C) No.3910/2009
2
right available to them under the policy cannot be denied on the
ground that they have been arrayed as accused in the case referred
above. It is stated that sale in respect of the aforesaid shops is now
scheduled to be held on 9/2/2009 and in the sale to be conducted,
they are entitled to be given preferential rights in terms of the
policy governing the same. It is stated that urging their claim as
above, they have already filed Exhibit P11 before the authorities
including the 4th respondent, District Collector, Kollam. It is stated
that unless a decision on Exhibit P11 is taken by the 4th respondent,
there is every possibility that the privilege that they are entitled
will be denied to the petitioners.
3. I heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. If as stated by the petitioners, charge has not been
framed by the Court where the criminal case is pending, the
petitioners cannot be excluded from granting licence or denied
preferential right; if eligible and this position is settled by this
Court as per Exhibit P5 judgment referred to above. It is urging
this contention the petitioners claimed preferential right in Exhibit
W.P.(C) No.3910/2009
3
P11 representation. Therefore, a decision on Exhibit P11
representation will have a material bearing on the aforesaid claim
of the petitioners.
5. In view of the above, I direct that the 4th respondent
shall consider Exhibit P11 in the light of Exhibit P4 policy as
interpreted in Exhibit P5 judgment and pass orders thereon and
communicate the same to the petitioner and that until orders are
passed on Exhibit P11 as directed above, allotment of the shops
mentioned above shall not be made. It is clarified that the sale now
scheduled on 9/02/2009 can go on, but only the actual allotment of
the shops need be deferred as directed above.
Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the
4th respondent along with a copy of the writ petition for
compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm