IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21571 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.C. BOSE, S/O CHELLAPPAN, PRAYANKARIYIL VEEDU, PADINJATTUMBHAGOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OFKERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21571/2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, though the petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P8 and P9, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as of now, he is not pressing the challenge against Ext.P9. The grievance in this writ petition is therefore confined to Ext.P8, an order issued by the first respondent. 2. The facts of the case are that, Ext.P1 is a licence granted to the petitioner and three other persons in respect of the toddy shops mentioned therein. Thereafter, they were granted Ext.P2 transport permit issued by the first respondent, authorising them to transport toddy from Palakkad District. According to the petitioner, there were certain labour agitations and as a result of which he had to WP(c).No.21571/08 2 obtain an order of police protection from this court as per Ext.P4 judgment. On the basis of Ext.P4 judgment, it is stated that he resumed business and there upon the trade unions forced the transport contractor, who was transporting toddy on the strength of Ext.P2, to stop further transport of toddy. Petitioner submits that, finally the contractor withdrew from the contract. 3. Thereupon, in order to make alternate arrangements petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application to the second respondent for changing the number of the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P2 transport permit. According to the petitioner, again on account of the influence of the trade unions, the second respondent kept the application without forwarding the same to the first respondent for orders on Ext.P5. In those circumstances petitioner filed a writ petition before this court as WP(c).No.18833/2008 and obtained Ext.P7 judgment directing the second respondent to accept the application and to forward the same to the first WP(c).No.21571/08 3 respondent. It is stated that, accordingly the application was forwarded but however the same was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P8 and it is challenging Ext.P8 this writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned Government Pleader mainly contends that the reason for rejection is the failure of the petitioner in producing the original of Ext.P2 permit along with Ext.P5 application. This omission on the part of the petitioner is seen mentioned in Ext.P8 order also. From the facts as noticed above, the controversy between the parties can be seen to be a narrow one. 5. The petitioner submits that Ext.P2 was made available to the 2nd respondent and as he did not demand its production, petitioner did not produce the same. Petitioner also submits that he is willing to produce the permit at any time before the second respondent for processing Ext.P5 application made by him for change of the number of the vehicle. WP(c).No.21571/08 4 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I feel that in the circumstances of the case, respondents 1 and 2 should reconsider the application made by the petitioner on his producing the original of Ext.P2 permit. This is for the reason that there is nothing to indicate that there was any deliberate failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the transport permit. Accordingly, quashing Ext.P8, I direct that, on the petitioner producing the original of Ext.P2 transport permit, the second respondent shall forward the same to the first respondent for reconsidering Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for change of the number of the vehicle in Ext.P2. Petitioner undertakes to produce the original of the transport permit before the second respondent before 5.8.2008 and it is directed that, on such production the second respondent shall forward the same to the first respondent, if necessary with his recommendations, at any rate within one week thereafter. It is directed that, on WP(c).No.21571/08 5 receipt of the application as above, the first respondent shall also pass final orders in this matter, within one week of its receipt. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.21571/08 6