IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12526 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.R.PAVITHRAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMANKUTTY, PAKKUVALLIL HOUSE, AMBIKA MARKET P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.N.SASI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, PAZHANILATHURA HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM, ULLALA P.O., VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN, MR.NIREESH MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.12526 of 2009-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are licensees of toddy shops, were allegedly found to have been in possession of toddy on a dry day in as much as the shops run by them were open on that day. Their licences were suspended as per Ext.P2 and later, cancelled as per Ext.P11. The petitioners were arrayed in a criminal case alleging offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act. This Court quashed that prosecution except in so far it is under Section 56(b). The violation of Section 56(b), though may amount to a violation of the term of the licence, it is stated that normally, that is condoned by imposing penalty and is not treated as an embargo for being considered for priority for the succeeding years. Even if a case under the Abkari WP(C)12526/09 -: 2 :- Law was registered and if the accused is later exonerated, such persons would also get the benefit of priority in terms of those rules. Therefore, in the fitness of things, it is necessary that the competent authority considers the case of the petitioners for being given the priority in terms of the rules, acting on Ext.P9 and in the light of what is aforesaid. To aid such process and to take an appropriate decision for any penalty that may be imposed against the petitioners for alleged violation of Section 56 (b), Exts.P2 and P11 are quashed. Since the learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P7 order has been appealed against by preferring a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, it is clarified that any decision following the aforesaid directions would be subject to the result of the decision of the Apex Court. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/020609