IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36422 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.VARUN CHANDRAN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.P.K.CHANDRAN, PULAVAZHITHODI VEEDU, MANNANNOOR.P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.36422 of 2010 EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.XA1-28700/2009 DATED 19.11.2010 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.11.2010 SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.XA1-28700/09 DATED 27.11.2010 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36422 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The previlege of vending toddy in all the toddy shops in Group No.VII of Ottapalam Range was awarded to the petitioner's father, Sri.P.K.Chandran. The said previlege was cancelled by the Commissioner of Excise by order passed on 8.9.2010 on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him. The shops were thereupon put up for re-sale. In the re-sale, the petitioner was the successful bidder. The sale in the petitioner's favour was confirmed by the Commissioner of Excise by Ext.P1 order dated 19.11.2010. The grant in favour of the petitioner was thereafter cancelled by Ext.P3 order dated 27.11.2010 on the ground that if the licence is granted to the petitioner, his father, who was the former licencee is likely to run the shop. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.C.C.Thomas, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not desirous of running the shop and that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, but with the observation that the respondents should refund to the petitioner the amounts deposited by him pursuant to the grant in his favour. Ext.P3 order passed by the Excise Commissioner which was W.P.(C) No.36422 of 2010 : 2 : impugned in the writ petition discloses that it was only because of the fact that the petitioner's father was the former licencee that the licence granted to him was cancelled. Ext.P3 does not contain anything adverse against the petitioner. As a matter of fact, Ext.P3 report discloses that it was on the apprehension that the petitioner's father is likely to interfere with the running of the business that the licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the repondents should refund to the petitioner money deposited by him at the time of the grant. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to refund to the petitioner the amount deposited by him pursuant to the grant in his favour. Such payment shall be made within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Palakkad. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.