IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9722 of 2008(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S. BINU, KALLORAYATHU KIZHAKKETHIL, PADINJATTINKARA, THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI, ADV. SMT.M.R.ANUPAMA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.9722 of 2008-G ================================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner faces a crime-cum-occurrence report filed before the Magistrate's Court stating that he has committed certain offences punishable under the provisions of the Abkari Act. Relying on the report of the analyst, it is pointed out that there is no noxious substance in the samples taken from the toddy shops in question and that therefore in the absence of materials which are injurious to health being available in the samples, no charge could be framed. This is an issue that could be raised by the petitioner in terms of WPC9722/2008 -:2:- the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate. However, since no charge has been framed by the court against the petitioner, he cannot be excluded from participation in the auction of toddy shops on the basis of the abkari policy document issued on 29-2-2008 by the State Government. Clause 11 of that Government Order confines exclusion to be to persons who have been charged of an offence, that too, for offence otherwise than under Section 56. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that Ext.P2 would result in his exclusion is out of place. 3. The plea of the petitioner that his case is exactly similar to the state of facts considered by this Court in Balu v. State of WPC9722/2008 -:3:- Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 401) is an issue that could be raised by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge.