IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10740 of 2008(C)
1. T.M.MOHANAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6. N.S.SAJEEVAN, S/O.SREENIVASAN,
7. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR-II,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.10740 of 2008-C
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.In the Thrissur district, samithies were
permitted to conduct toddy shops in two ranges.
The petitioner states that he was a member of
such samathi and that the samithies are exempted
from payment of tree tax and that he has not
conducted any abkari shop otherwise than as a
member of a samithi. He accordingly states that
it was illegal on the part of the State to have
treated him as a defaulter on tree tax and in
having denied him the privilege in terms of the
Abkari Policy for the year 2008-2009. That abkari
year has already ended.
2.The question now is as to whether the petitioner
should be continued to be treated as a defaulter
to exclude him from the opportunity to
WP(C)10740/2008 -: 2 :-
participate and to be considered for allotment of
shop in the Abkari year 2009-2010. If there is no
arrear of tree tax, the petitioner is entitled to
participate. There is nothing on record
demonstrating that the petitioner is liable to pay
tree tax either on account of his having had any
individual transaction or group transaction. The
allegation of the petitioner that he was party
only to samithies in Thrissur, therefore, prima
facie, stands. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
petitioner would not be treated as a defaulter for
the purpose of the ensuing auction for the abkari
year 2009-2010.
3.The petitioner has also a claim that he be
refunded the amount which has been forfeited as
per Ext.P4. This is an issue that the petitioner
can raise before the Excise Commissioner on
appropriate representation and if it is found that
he had no individual liability and was party only
to samithies which were exempted from payment of
tree tax, the forfeiture order would be considered
WP(C)10740/2008 -: 3 :-
for release of funds. Any request of the
petitioner in that regard will be considered and
disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and a
representation requesting for such refund. The
writ petition is ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/110609