Judgment:
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.
1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. He was the licensee of toddy shops in group No. III of Adimali Excise Range. Crime No. 32/2008 has been registered against him by the Excise Range Officer, Adimali, under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. Though the challenge against the prosecution was repelled by this Court, it is common ground that the prosecution in that case has been stayed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the respondent moved for a certificate under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules (for short, 'the Rules'). The certificate was granted. He was also granted allotment of those shops, for the financial year 2010-2011. It is common ground that he has deposited the entire amount in accordance with the rule, within the time limit specified. But, the Commissioner of Excise did not pass any orders, confirming the said allotment, under Rule 5(15) of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached this Court, by filing the present Writ Petition, seeking appropriate reliefs.
2. The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the Commissioner of Excise to confirm the allotment of the shops in the respondent's favour. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the appellants have preferred this Writ Appeal.
3. We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Under Rule 5(1)(a), a person, against whom an abkari case is registered, is not entitled to get preference in the matter of allotment, except under Rule 56 of the Rules. According to the respondent, since the prosecution is stayed by the Apex Court, he should be treated as a person, against whom no abkari case is registered. But, the appellants would contend that even if the prosecution is stayed, still, the respondent is a person, against whom an abkari case is registered. But, having regard to the facts of the case, we think, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the above controversy. It is common ground that in the above dispute, even though, this Court has already taken a view in favour of the contention of the State, the said decision has been stayed by the Apex Court. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for the respondent, the Excise Commissioner is bound to take a decision on the question of confirmation. Going by the rules, he should have taken a decision before 31.3.2010. In view of the above position, we direct the second appellant to take a decision on the claim of the respondent for confirmation of the allotment of toddy shops in his favour, in accordance with law, within one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Appeal is allowed as above, by modifying the interim order under appeal.