IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5086 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ N.VELAPPAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PLAVARATHALA PUTHENVEEDU, ARALUMOODU P.O., ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GP SMT.N.SUDHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.5086 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am satisfied that the case of the petitioner could attain the attention of the Excise Commissioner in the light of what has been stated in Ext.P4 judgment, though this Court is not concluding on the question as to whether the petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioner in Ext.P4. Under such circumstances, following Ext.P4 judgment, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner submits a representation along with a copy of this judgment within one week from now, the Excise Commissioner will consider at the earliest, after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard as to whether WPC5086/2008 -:2:- Ext.P1 occurrence report should continue on the basis that an offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act has also been made out against the petitioner. Till such consideration, any cancellation of licence referable to the registration of Ext.P1 will stand deferred. I have also noticed that there is an error in Ext.P4 judgment in as much as towards the end of second paragraph. It has been erroneously stated that the offence could be only under Section 57(a). In fact, the reference was to Section 56(b). It is so directed. Since the error in Ext.P4 has been noticed by this Court and recorded, a copy of this judgment shall be incorporated in the file of WP(C) No.4336 of 2008. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.