IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10211 of 2010(B)
1. K.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
6. SRI. ANSARI, BABA SAHIB NAGAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.10211 of 2010 (B)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner’s allegation is that the 6th respondent has been
illegally given preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops
Disposal Rules, 2002 in respect of T.S.Nos.12 to 16 in Group No.III
of Kollam Excise Range for the abkari year 2009-10. According to
the petitioner, 6th respondent is ineligible for such preference.
2. He says that initially the licence in respect of the toddy
shops were granted to two other persons and that on cancellation of
the said licence, the shops were resold in favour of the 6th
respondent only on 15/03/2010. It is stated that in between
15/13/2010 and the date of auction for the year 2010-2011, 6th
respondent did not conduct the shop, and therefore, he is ineligible
for preference under the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002.
In my view, the question whether the 6th respondent is eligible
or not is a matter, primarily, to be considered by the departmental
authorities. Even according to the petitioner, the allotment in favour
WP(C) No.10211/2010
-2-
of the 6th respondent on preferential basis has not been confirmed
by the 2nd respondent so far. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to
move the 2nd respondent and it is for that authority to consider the
objections raised by the petitioner. It is only thereafter can the
petitioner have any course of action to move this writ petition. It is
directed that if any such representation has been made by the
petitioner, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law, and
as expeditiously as possible.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg