IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1417 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24922/2011 Dated 28/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / 6TH RESPONDENT -------------- SURESH KUMAR K, S/O.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, KONNATH HOUSE, PUTHUPERIYAR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 101. BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS & WRIT PETITIONER --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. 5. THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, OTTAPALAM CIRCLE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679 101. W.A.NO.1417/2011 6. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SUDHEESH.P., S/O.HARIDASAN.P., AGED 39, PARAMEL HOUSE, VELLANEZHI, THIRUVAZHIYODE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R7 SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R7 SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R7 MS.T.B.REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A.No.1417 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing Excise Authorities to consider 7th respondent's preferential claim for allotment of toddy shop. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 7th respondent is not eligible to be considered on account of delay in reaching the Office with the certificate to prove preference in the auction. However, it is seen that the 7th respondent was allowed to participate along with others in the open category. If that be so, we see no reason how 7th respondent's preferential claim cannot be considered based on certificate produced merely because there was delay of 10 minutes in producing the certificate. The learned Single Judge has only directed the Excise authorities to consider the preferential claim of the 7th respondent. Therefore, we do not W.A.No.1417/2011 2 find any ground to interfere with the direction issued. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg