IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10597 of 2009(T)
1. T.J.PRASAD,AGED 26 YRS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,COMMISSIONERATE
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
4. ANEESH KURUVILA, S/O.KURUVILA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/04/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.10597 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner along with the 4th respondent were licensees of
toddy shop Nos.6, 8, 9, 13, 16 and 17 in Group No.III of Angamaly
excise range, for the abkari year 2008-09. They got allotment on the
basis of preferential right as per Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops
Disposal Rules, 2002. Now in view of the impending election, by Ext.P2
Government order, the Government decided to extend the validity
period of the licence for a period of three months before conducting
auction for allotment of toddy shops. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3
application before the 3rd respondent for such extension. That
application was not signed by the 4th respondent, since, according to
the petitioner, the 4th respondent is not interested in continuing the
licence for his own reasons. The 3rd respondent takes a stand that
unless the 4th respondent also signs the application, the licence in
question would not be extended. In the above circumstances, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“i) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get extension of license for
a period of 3 months in respect of the toddy shop Nos.6, 8, 9, 13,
16 and 17 in Group No.III of Angamaly excise range in Ernakulam
District as per Ext.P3 application.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the respondents to give extension of licence
for a period of 3 months in respect of toddy shop Nos.6, 8, 9, 13,
16 and 17 in Group No.III of Angamaly excise range in Ernakulam2
District to the petitioner as per his application, Ext.P3;”
2. The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayers of
the petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, since
earlier licence was in the joint names of the petitioner and the 4th
respondent, renewal can only be made, if they apply together.
3. I am not satisfied that the petitioner’s right should depend
on the will of the 4th respondent, if he is not interested in continuing to
be a licensee. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed
of with the following directions:
The 3rd respondent shall issue a notice to the 4th respondent to
ascertain as to whether the 4th respondent is interested in continuing
the licence. If the 4th respondent is not so interested, licence shall be
renewed in the name of the petitioner alone. Entire process shall be
completed within a period of two weeks, if necessary, by issuing notice
to the 4th respondent by special messenger.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
3