IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27733 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AYYAPPAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN KOLLIYIL HOUSE, PANAMARAM P.O., MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A ) DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, WAYANAD 673 592 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 673 592 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, SULTHAN BATHERI, OFFICE AT MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 673 591 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27733 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a licensee of toddy shop Nos.18 to 23 in group No.IV of Sulthan Batheri Excise Range. In this writ petition he challenges Ext.P1 order dated 27.8.2010 issued by the Commissioner of Excise suspending the licence issued to him in respect of the aforesaid toddy shops and calling upon him to show cause why the licence/privilege granted to him should not be cancelled. The Commissioner of Excise has issued Ext.P1 order for the reason that Crime No.39/2010 under section 57(a) and 56 (b) of the Abkari Act has been registered against the petitioner on 12.5.2010. The petitioner contends that the sample of toddy taken from toddy shop No.12 on 14.6.2007 was subjected to analysis, that Ext.P3 analysis report was obtained way back on 28.6.2007 and that the instant crime was registered only three years later and therefore, that cannot form the basis of an order of suspension. It is also contended that in the case of Sri.N.N.Kunju, the licensee of toddy shops of Peumbavoor Excise W.P(C).No.27733 of 2010 -:2:- Range, where a sample of toddy was recently taken and found not to conform to the standards prescribed by the rules, the Excise Commissioner has only issued a show cause notice and that the licences were not suspended. It is contended that the decision taken by the Excise Commissioner to suspend the licence issued to the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. I heard Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Manu, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through Ext.P1 and the reasons stated therein. In my opinion the mere fact that the officers of the Excise Department, who were responsible for taking due action on receipt of the chemical analysis report, failed to act in time and to register a case against the petitioner is not a good ground to hold that the Commissioner of Excise is disabled from suspending the licence issued to the petitioner or from proceeding against him. The delay and laches on the part of the officers would render them liable for disciplinary action and cannot be a ground for the petitioner to contend that no action can be taken against him for selling toddy which does not conform to the prescribed standards especially having regard to the frequent liquor tragedies in the State of Kerala including W.P(C).No.27733 of 2010 -:3:- the recent one that took place in Malappuram District. I am therefore not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delayed registration of a crime based on the inspection held on 14.6.2007 cannot form the basis for the order of suspension. The delayed registration of the crime even after receipt of the analysis report on 28.6.2007 can at best be raised only as a defence in the criminal case and cannot, in my opinion, stand in the way of the Excise Commissioner from initiating other proceedings against the petitioner. It cannot also be said that the Commissioner of Excise has acted arbitrarily in issuing Ext.P1 merely for the reason that he did not suspend the licence issued to Sri.N.N.Kunju. By Ext.P1 the petitioner was also called upon to show cause why the licence/privilege should not be cancelled for violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. It is for the petitioner to submit an appropriate reply to Ext.P1 and to show cause why notwithstanding the recitals therein, the licence/privilege issued to him is not liable to be cancelled. In my opinion the petitioner ought to have awaited the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the Excise Commissioner before seeking the intervention of this Court. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The W.P(C).No.27733 of 2010 -:4:- writ petition fails and is dismissed with the observation that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from showing cause as to why the licence issued to him should not be cancelled. In the event of the petitioner submitting an appropriate representation in reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice dated 27.8.2010, the Excise Commissioner shall take a decision in the matter expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of such a representation, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.27733 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th September, 2010