IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16727 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAJI.S, KOZHIKODE ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, ANAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, KUNNIPURATHU VEEDU, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KERALA KUMAR, S/O.LAKSHMANA PANICKER, KASTHURI BHAVAN, MARANALLOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. BALACHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PACHALLOOR MUDUMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. PRADEEP, S/O.SADASIVA PANICKER, NELLISSERIKKARA, GOURIVILASOM, VELLARADA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.16727 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that he along with respondents 4 to 7 were joint licensees of toddy shops in Group 1 of Kattakkada Excise Range. As per the provisions of the Abkari policy for the year 2008-09 former licensees are entitled to preference in the matter of grant of licence. The petitioner submits that being the former licensees, the petitioner along with respondents 4 to 7 decided to participate in the proceedings for sale of toddy shops for the current year jointly. The petitioner alleges that he signed joint application for licence along with respondents 4 to 7 and obtained all certificates/documents required as per law and entrusted the same to respondents 4 to 7 for submission on the date of auction. The petitioner was also present on the date of auction. But the petitioner was surprised to learn that the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, invited respondents 4 to 7 alone to sign the sale list. Then the petitioner realised that respondents 4 to 7 cheated the petitioner and managed to substitute the original application signed by the petitioner with an w.p.c.16727/08 2 application signed by respondents 4 to 7 without the petitioner. Alleging fraud played on the petitioner by respondents 4 to 7 the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to respondents 4 to 7 at this juncture. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 7. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.16727/08 3