IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 128 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36507/2010 Dated 22/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------ P.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PULAVAGHITHODE HOUSE, MANNANOOR P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A.No.128 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing restoration of the toddy shop licence to the respondent. The licence issued for the year 2010-11 was cancelled on account of the excess percentage of alcohol in the toddy taken from the respondent's toddy shop. However, the criminal case was quashed by this Court vide Ext.P5 order. Since the sole basis of the cancellation of licence was the criminal case charged against the respondent and since the said proceedings were quashed by Ext.P5 order, the learned Single Judge directed restoration of the licence. It is against this judgment, the State has filed this Writ Appeal. 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that even though cancellation of licence was based on the criminal case instituted against the respondent, it is an independent proceedings, and mere cancellation of the criminal complaint does not lead to automatic restoration of the licence. The W.A.No.128/2011 2 learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent also does not challenge this legal preposition canvassed by the learned Government Pleader. However his case is that since the basis of cancellation of licence is the criminal case which does not survive after Ext.P5 order, the respondent is entitled to restoration of licence. We feel this is a matter which has to be considered by the Excise Commissioner under the Rules but by referring to the findings in Ext.P5 order as well. This Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Excise Commissioner to reconsider restoration of the licence and renewal of the same based on subsequent policy followed. The Commissioner is directed to decide the matter afresh after notice to the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg