IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 OP.No. 3775 of 2003(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. SUKUMARAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. 2. RAJENDRAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, VATTACHIRAYIL HOUSE, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ALAPPUZHA R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. SAJEEV. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 3775 of 2003(Y) ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.6675/2003 IN O.P. NO. 3775/2003 DISMISSED 07/06/2010. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN AN IDENTICAL CASE IN C.M.P. NO.4684/2003 IN O.P. NO. 2584/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P.No.3775 of 2003 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 series of notices issued by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Alappuzha calling upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for selling toddy, the ethyl alcohol content of which was in excess of 8.1% v/v, are under challenge in this original petition. Petitioners also challenge the validity of Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. Learned counsel on both sides agree that Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, as it stood prior to 14.2.2002, was struck down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Unni , 2007(1) KLT 151. Learned counsel on both sides submit that Rule 9(2) was thereupon amended by S.R.O.No.144/2007 and that amended rule has only prospective application. In the light of the fact that Rule 9(2), which was relied on in the year 2002 to issue Ext.P1 series of notices, has been struck down by the Apex Court I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this original petition. The original petition is accordingly allowed and Ext.P1 series of notices are quashed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. O.P.No.3775 of 2003 -:2:- P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.No.3775 of 2003 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th June, 2010