IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 8153 of 2010(T) 1. R.SHAJI, ... Petitioner 2. S.SUNDARESAN, KUTTIPPURATH VEEDU. Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ... Respondent 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIOENR, 3. THE ASSISTATN EXCISE COMMISSIONER, 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHATHANNOOR For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :17/03/2010 O R D E R ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) Nos.8153 (T) & 8603 (A) of 2010 -------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are licensees and salesmen of toddy shops in
Chathannoor Excise Range in Kollam district. According to the
petitioners, they are entitled preference in the matter of allotment of
toddy shops for the year 2010-2011. However, they apprehend
that in view of Ext.P2, the Crime and Occurrence Report in
C.R.No.12/2008, and Crime and Occurrence Report in C.R.No.
932/2009, they are likely to be denied preference under Rule 5(1)(a)
of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002.
2. According to the petitioners, although crime has been
registered and FIR has been lodged, offences have not been
charged, and that therefore, mere registration of crime shall not
result in denial of preference. The learned counsel also referred me
to the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.9603/2008 in support of
3. However, from the Crime and Occurrence Report in
WP(C) Nos.8153 & 8603/2010
C.R.No.12/2008 against the petitioners in WP(C) No.8153/2010, it
is noticed that the petitioners are accused for offences under
Sections 8(1) & (2), 55(a), 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act.
Similarly, offences alleged against the petitioners in WP(C)
No.8603/2010 are under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and under
various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Rule 5(1)(a) of the
Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 provides for preference,
and one of the conditions for preference is that no abkari case is
registered against the licensee, who claims privilege, other than
under Section 56 of the Abkari Act. In this case, since from the
crime and occurrence reports itself, it is evident that abkari cases
are registered against the petitioners for offences other than under
Section 56 of the Abkari Act, and in which case the petitioners
cannot claim preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops
Disposal Rules, 2002. In that view of the matter I am not persuaded
to direct the respondents to give preference to the petitioners.
These writ petitions fails and are accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)