IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13609 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. P.S.RAJ, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O. SADAGOPAN, PANIKKASSERIL HOUSE, CLAPPANA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. V.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PADMALAYAM HOUSE, KARIYILAKULANGARA P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN, SRI.NIREESH MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KARUNAGAPPALY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13609/2011 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LICENSE IN RESPECT OF T.S.NO.26/2010 - 11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 9/04/2010. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.10/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 27/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 31/12/2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/01/2011 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE TODDY TRANSPORT PERMIT DTD. 17/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, PALAKKAD. P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 31/03/2011 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS.10,500/-. P8: COPY OF THE TODDY TRANSPORT PERMIT DTD. 6/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, PALAKKAD. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/03/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XA7-30824/2010 DTD. 4/05/2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 13609 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were jointly alloted toddy shop Numbers 26 to 32 in group No.VI of Karunagappally excise range. On account of the Malappuram liquor tragedy the petitioners were directed orally to close down their toddy shops. The contention of the petitioners is that subsequently, they were permitted to re-open the toddy shops and accordingly, the aforesaid shops were reopened except the toddy shop No.30. The contention of the petitioners is that toddy shop No.30 could not be reopened due to the non- availability of a building in an un-objectionable site. In the meanwhile without considering the subsequent development Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued. The contention of the petitioner is that during the pendency the privilege and licence issued to the petitioner was extended from 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2011 taking into account the declaration of election. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have paid the entire rental for 3 months. They were also issued with Ext.P8 toddy WPC.13609/2011 : 2 : permit for transporting toddy from Chittoor to Karunagappally. However, without considering such subsequent developments, Ext.P10 order was passed by the second respondent on 4.5.2011 alleging violation of Rule 7(15) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P10 order was passed without any application of mind. The subsequent developments were not duly taken into account by the second respondent before passing Ext.P10. Though the shops in question were remain closed consecutively for more than 30 days, they were permitted to reopen all the shops except shop No.30. In respect of all said shops the privileges and licences were extended subsequently for a period of three months from 1.4.2011 to 30.6.2011. Based on the said order they have paid the rental and the petitioners were given Ext.P8 toddy permit as well. In the said circumstances, according to the petitioners the second respondent is bound to consider the issue afresh after taking into account the WPC.13609/2011 : 3 : aforesaid subsequent developments. In support of the said contentions the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this court in WPC No.4042/2011. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, the subsequent developments were not duly taken into by the second respondent prior to the passing of Ext.P10. According to the petitioners all the toddy shops except toddy shop No.30 were reopened based on the orders from the respondent and the privileges and licences were issued for a period of 3 months from 1.4.2011 to 30.6.2011 and it is still in force. They have already paid the entire rental and they are also holding Ext.P8 permit. 4. In the said circumstances I am of the view that it is only appropriate for the second respondent to re-consider the issue. To enable the second respondent to consider the subsequent developments and to appreciate the factual aspects involved in this writ petition and, thereafter, to pass orders in accordance with law, Ext.P10 order is set aside. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as WPC.13609/2011 : 4 : to the merits of the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Such a decision shall be taken by the 2nd respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Taking into account the fact that the toddy shops except shop No.30 were reopened and subsequently, the privileges and licence were extended by three months which would expire only on 30.6.2011 and that they were also serve with Ext.P8 toddy permit, there will be a direction that in case, toddy shops except shop No.30 were not specifically taken over by any other agencies pursuant to Ext.P10 order the petitioners shall be permitted to run the same till the expiry of the period viz., 30.6.2011. It is made clear that this order confines only for shop numbers 26 to 32 excluding shop No.30. The right to continue thereafter would depend upon the decision to be passed by the 2nd respondent in terms of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge