IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11724 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.S.SONY, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, ERANATTUKARA VEETTIL, NATAKOM P.O.,DIST KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM. 4. G.GITHIN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ORRILAMAKKAL,AMBALA P.O.,ELAMPARA DESAM, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTYAM DIST 5. O.R.RAGHAVAN, S/O.RAMAN, OTTAPLAKKAL VEETIIL, PERINGALAM KARA, POONAJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAG,E MEENACHIL TALUK, DIST KOTTAYAM. 6. O.S.SANKARAN,S/O.SANKARAN, OLIKKAL VEETTIL,VILAKKUMADOM KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE, MEENCHIL TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.11724 OF 2010 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks a declaration that the sale of toddy shop Nos. 19 to 24 in group No.IV of Erattupetta Excise Range, made in favour of respondents 4 to 6, by taking lot on 19.3.2010 is illegal. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. 2. According to the petitioner, he and respondents 4 to 6 were the joint licensees in the previous year. But however, this year they applied for allotment of toddy shops separately. Since there are rival claims, lot was taken and in that process, the shops were allotted to respondents 4 to 6. 3. Petitioner submits that the offer made by respondents 4 to 6 were not in compliance with the Rules governing the same for various reasons and that he was the only claimant, who satisfied all the statutory requirements for allotment of toddy shops on a preferential basis. It is stated that therefore there was no necessity to adopt the lot system and that the shops ought to have been allotted to the petitioner. WPC.No. 11724/2010 :2 : 4. Essentially therefore what the petitioner contends is that an illegal allotment has been made in favour of respondents 4 to 6 and that shops ought to have been granted to him. 5. According to the Government pleader, considering the nature of allegations, a full fledged enquiry is going on and allotment has not so far been confirmed by the Excise Commissioner as required under Rule 5(15) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002. it is also seen that the petitioner has also filed Ext.P12 objection before the Excise Commissioner raising his contentions. 6. Having regard to the pendency of the enquiry and confirmation of the allotment by the Excise Commissioner is yet to be ordered, I feel that it is premature for this court to enter into the controversy raised in the writ petition. 7. In the light of the above I dispose of this writ petition directing that while the Excise Commissioner considers the allotment of Toddy Shops in favour of respondents 4 to 6 for confirmation, the Excise Commissioner hall take note of the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P12 complaint filed by him also and orders shall be passed only on that basis. WPC.No. 11724/2010 :3 : Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the Excise Commissioner for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/