Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE30H DAY OF JANUARY201410TH MAGHA, 1935 WA.No. 508 of 2011 IN WP(C).18842/2010 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 18842/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2903-2011 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. OMANAKUTTAN.C,S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED50YEARS, RESIDING AT ODAYIL VADAKETHIL, CANTONMENT NORTH, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. UPENDRA BABU, S/O.YESODHA, AGED47YEARS, RESIDING AT CHETTIYARUVILA VEEDU, VADAKEVILA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3. KAMALASANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED60YEARS, RESIDING AT VAYALIL PUTHENVEEDU, ASRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------- 1.THIRUVANANTHAPURAMEXCISE, KERALA, THE COMMISSIONER OF695102. 2.KOLLAM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, - 691 510. 3.KOLLAM THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, 691 510.
4. THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, KOLLAM69151. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON3001-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.508 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The appellants filed W.P.(C).No.18842 of 2010, challenging Ext.P3 order issued by the first respondent cancelling licences issued to them to run Toddy Shop Nos.7 to 11 in Group II of Kollam Excise Range. By the Judgment under appeal, rejecting the contentions raised, the Writ Petition was dismissed. It is challenging that judgment, this appeal is filed.
2. The main contention raised is that the seizure of spirit from the premises of one particular shop cannot be a reason to cancel licences of other toddy shops in the Group. The second contention raised is that, Section 26(b) of the Abkari Act and Rules 5(19) and 7(31) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules are not attracted to the case in hand.
3. Insofar as the first contention regarding the cancellation of the licence in respect of other shops in the W.A.No.508 of 2011 2 Group is concerned, the issue is covered against the appellants in the judgment of this Court in Rarichan George Vs. Commissioner of Excise [2008(2)KLT726. We fully accept the reasoning in that judgment and therefore, do not find any substance in this contention.
4. Insofar as the second contention regarding the inapplicability of the provisions of the Act and Rules is concerned, that contention also cannot be accepted in favour of the appellants. As it is evident from Rule 5(19), the Rule enables the Commissioner of Excise to cancel a licence issued under the rules on valid grounds. Rule 7(31), as rightly noted by the learned Single Judge, stipulates that infraction of any of the rules or conditions of the licence either by the licensee or by any person in his employment shall entail on the forfeiture of deposit/annual rental and cancellation of licence. Similarly under Rule 7(38) licensee is bound to obey all rules made under the Act or under any law covered. It has been found that there is infraction of Rules. Consequence of infraction of W.A.No.508 of 2011 3 the Rules is the cancellation of licence. Such cancellation can only be in respect of not only the shop in question but also other shops covered by the licensee. In the light of the above, we do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A. To Judge