IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No.705 of 2008 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7994/2008 Dated 10/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------- G.LAKSHMANAN, VALIYAVEETTIL THODIYIL, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOLLAM EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM. 4. SHYJIN M., SHYNE NIVAS, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.705 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. He was the licensee of Toddy Shop No.17 of Kollam Excise Range during the year 2004- 2005. It is stated that during the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 the shop was not licensed due to non-availability of space within the prohibited distance. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of auction during the year 2007-2008, he was entitled to get preference as he has been conducting the shop during the previous year. It is an admitted case that he was not a licensee for the year 2007-2008. For the year 2008-2009 the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus or direction to the second respondent to issue license in respect of Toddy Shop No.17 in the name of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3 Abkari Policy. He also sought for a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue preference certificate to him in respect of Toddy Shop No.17 and a further direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation. (2). Learned Single Judge took the view that preference certificate is to be given to licensees who were conducting business for the preceding three years. Admittedly, the appellant was not a licensee for the year 2007-2008. The appellant is seeking preference certificate for the year 2008-2009. Since the Policy contemplates issuance of preference certificate to a person who was a licensee during the preceding three years in relation to the year in question and the appellant was not a licensee for the year 2007-2008, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant is not entitled W.A.No.705/2008 -2- for preference certificate. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal. (3). We heard Dr.K.P.Satheesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel would contend that though the appellant was not a licensee for the year 2007-2008, it is also a fact that the license issued for the year 2007-2008 for the shop in question has been cancelled on account of registration of a criminal case. He would therefore contend that the claim of the appellant for grant of preference certificate for the year 2008-2009 should be considered. (4). We find no force in the said contention. The question whether the appellant is entitled for grant of preference certificate for the year 2008-2009 is to be answered by the terms of Ext.P3. The clause in question contemplates that preference will be given to those person who were running toddy shops during the preceding 3 years. The learned Single Judge has correctly found that preference for grant of license will be available to those who had conducted shops for the 3 preceding years. Admittedly, the appellant was not a licensee for the year 2007-2008. The fact that the licensee for the year 2007-2008 is not entitled for license would not ipso facto entitle the appellant to claim the benefit of the preference clause. We find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS