IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32962 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.D. VENU, S/O.LATE DIVAKARAN, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMPURAM DESOM, CHENNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JAI GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 32962/2009-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LICENSE T.S. NO.36/09-10 FOR THE YEAR 2007-2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 23906/2009 DATED 20/08/2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XA2-21516/2009 DATED 27/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.32962 of 2009-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a grantee of a licence under the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. Until 2007-08, the toddy shop was licensed in building No.X/434 under the protection provided under the second proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Disposal Rules, 2002. The undisputed situation is that in 2008-09, the said toddy shop was not licensed in the same building. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Disposal Rules for the current year since that would apply only if the objectionable place was licensed in terms of the said proviso during the immediately preceding year. This position notwithstanding, the petitioner states in this writ petition that he is entitled to the benefit of the protection WPC32962/09 -: 2 :- in view of the fact that the shop remained unlicensed for the previous year for want of unobjectionable sites. That plea is contradictory to the fact that the building is within objectionable distance and had enjoyed the benefit of the protection last year. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned Ext.P8 order. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1612