IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 12227 of 2007(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ JANARDANAN, S/O.INNITTY, THALAPILLY, VADAKKEMMURY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUDEVAN, S/O.ARUCHAMI, PULIYANGODE HOUSE, ELAPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD. R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14022008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12227/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION LICENCE NO.B.58 OF THE PETITIONER DULY RENEWED TILL 31.3.2007. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.G.O.(P)NO.43/2007/TD DT. 13.3.07 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PREFERENCE DT. 20.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.12227 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner and the fourth respondent and, going by the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions, another two had applied for allotment of a toddy shop. Such lots were drawn and the shop went in favour of the fourth respondent. This writ petition is filed on 9- 4-2007 contending that the fourth respondent did not have any privilege in terms of Rule 5 (1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal) Rules, 2002 as amended with effect from 1-4- 2007, since the fourth respondent had not conducted the shop for the previous three abkari years, which fact is not disputed by the fourth respondent. If the fourth respondent WPC12227/2007 -:2:- did not have a preference, he could not have been a competitor to the petitioner who had a preference. But, going by the submission of the learned Government Pleader, it is apparent that there were four competitors and lots were drawn. This means that the officials acted on the premise that all four had preference in terms of Rule 5(1)(a). Even if the fourth respondent is found to be one who do not have preference in terms of that rule, the petitioner's chance of success by drawal of lots would have been only one third. With that chance of success and today, on 14-2-2008, when the current abkari order comes on 31-3-2008, I do not deem it appropriate to extend the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court and interfere with the licence issued to the fourth respondent. However, the official respondents WPC12227/2007 -:3:- shall ensure that the fourth respondent, by reason of his having conducted the shop in question for the current abkari year, will not gain any privilege on account of that. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.