IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8284 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, BABY VILASOM, KARIKKODE P.O., MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, MR.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MR.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, MR.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), MR.MATHEW SUNNY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8284/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the licensee of toddy shop No.16 of Kollam Excise Range during the period 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. From 2007-08, another person was granted the licence. According to the petitioner, the licence so granted has been cancelled. It is stated that when the shop is to be auctioned, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (in short 'the Rules'), petitioner is entitled to preference. Though Ext.P4 representation has been made in this behalf, there was no response and the auction is to take place on 15.3.2010. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to give the petitioner preference for which he is entitled under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules. 2. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules is extracted hereunder. “While giving privilege, preference shall be given to those licencees who had conducted toddy shops during the preceding three years consecutively from (2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008- W.P.(C).8284/10 2 09) provided no abkari case is registered against him other than under Section 56 of the Abkari Act. The licensees who had conducted the shops during (2002-03 and subsequent years) and whose licences cancelled due to registration of abkari cases and subsequently exonerated by the Courts and those licensees who could not complete the preceding three years on account of the closure of shops shall also be given preference. 3. A reading of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules shows that to claim preference, a person should have been a licensee who had conducted toddy shops during the preceding three years consecutively from 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. From the facts, it is evident that the last year, in which the petitioner was the licensee, is 2006-07. If that be so, he did not conduct toddy shop consecutively for three years as provided in Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules. If so, the claim of the petitioner for preference has no merit. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs