IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 792 of 2008()
1. K.G.SATHYANANDAN, POOVANTHURUTHU VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAKAKAM
3. EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
4. SRI. SASI, PLANKALAPUTHEN VEETTIL
For Petitioner :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)
For Respondent :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :12/03/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------
W.A. No.792 OF 2008
--------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ
petition seeking a direction to the official respondents to renew
in his favour, the licence of toddy shop No.6 of Kilimanoor
Excise Range.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following:
The appellant submits he was running T.S.No.6, as the
licensee, for the last several years. While so, during the Abkari
year 2007-2008, the Government decided to club together 5 to
7 toddy shops into one group and auction them together.
T.S.Nos.1 to 7 were clubbed as group No.1 of Kilimanoor
Excise Range in the auction for the year 2007-2008. The
appellant along with 4th respondent and three others jointly bid
for the licence of the said group for the year 2007-2008. The
same was granted to them as per Ext.P3. For the Abkari year
2008-2009, the petitioner, 4th respondent and others bid for
W.A.No.792/2008 2
licence of Group No.1, individually. As far as the said group is
concerned, it was found that the petitioner, the 4th respondent
and other bidders stood on the same footing. All of them were
joint licensees for the preceding year. So, the competent
authority decided to draw lots and the lot fell in favour of the 4th
respondent. So, he was granted licence for the Abkari year
2008-2009, for the toddy shop Nos.1 to 7 in group No. 1 of
Kilimanoor Excise Range.
3. The petitioner filed the writ petition contending that
he was running shop No.6 for the last several years and even
after the commencement of the group system he continued to
run the said shop. According to him, since he was the licensee of
the shop No.6, he was entitled to get preference for renewal of
the licence of that shop for the year 2008-2009. But, instead of
acknowledging his preference, as provided under Rule 5 of the
Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, the 4th respondent
was preferred. So, he filed the writ petition praying for
appropriate reliefs.
4. The official respondents filed a counter affidavit
stating that during the year 2007-2008, the group was auctioned
by 5 persons including the appellant and the 4th respondent. For
W.A.No.792/2008 3
this year, that is, for 2008-2009, out of the five persons, 4
persons submitted separate bids. Since all of them were treated
as equal, for the purpose of grant of licence of Group No.1, lots
were drawn and the lot fell in favour of the 4th respondent. The
4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit on the above
lines. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.
5. The learned Senior counsel, Sri.M.Dharmadan
appearing for the appellant submitted that the arrangement
during the year 2007-08 of joint licence was an informal
arrangement and he was always running shop No.6. Therefore,
as per the rules, he is entitled to get preference. The Abkari
policy produced as Ext.R4(a) cannot take away his rights under
the statutory rules.
6. We heard the learned Government Pleader,
Sri.M.R.Sabu, for the official respondents and
Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan for the 4th respondent. We notice that
following Ext.R4(a) Abkari policy, the statutory rules were
correspondingly amended. In this case, the appellant as well as
W.A.No.792/2008 4
the 4th respondent was joint licensee of the shops in Group No.1
of Kilimanoor Range during the year 2007-2008. So, when both
of them applied separately for licence of the shops in the said
group they were treated as equals and therefore lots were
drawn. We find nothing wrong with the procedure followed by
the department for grant of licence. If one of the joint licensees
managed a particular shop, it is an internal arrangement
between the licensees. In the eye of law that shop is also run by
all the licensees. For this year, the appellant also bid for the
licence of Group No.1 and not for the licence of T.S.No.6.
Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge
rightly declined to interfere with the grant of licence to the 4th
respondent and refused to grant any relief to the appellant. In
the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
ps