IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18235 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASIDHARAN, SASIPURATH VEEDU, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, MUTTATHI PARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THAMPAN, S/O. GOPALAN, VISRANTHI, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 6. PRASAD, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, ERUMAKKAD P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA. 7. SOMARAJAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, SUMESH BHAVANAM, MEKKU MURI, THAMARAKULAM. BY GP V MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ============================== WP(C) No. 18235 of 2009 ============================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, he is qualified for preference for allotment of toddy shops. By virtue of the pleadings on record, his rivals, respondents 5 and 7 are also entitled to such preference because the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 7 have continuous experience for the immediately three preceding abkari years. The petitioner however tries to project a case that respondents 5 and 7 had practised fraud on the department during the previous years and that such experience cannot be counted. He also pleads that respondents 5 and 7 are essentially benami of the 6th respondent. In the same breath, he also says that he was forced to apply for allotment of shop jointly with them. Ultimately he stands to complain that the allotment of the shops in question was by draw of lots and this is illegal. 2. Though the petitioner says that the aforesaid claim Wpc 18235/2009 2 came to his knowledge only after obtaining Ext.P3, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner and his rivals had requisite experience for equal preference in terms of the abkari law as it now stands and therefore the officials were obliged to make the allotment on the basis of draw of lots. There is hence no illegality in the matter and it is not for this court to sit in judgment on any allegation of the fraud that the petitioner tries to point out in relation to shops for the previous years. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/30/6