IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16326 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.MANILAL CHECKALATHEVAYIL, PUTHEN SANKETHAM DESOM KOYIVILA, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJENDRAN, KUNNAMKULANGARA VEETTIL,PERUMKULAM DESOM KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER KOLLAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16326 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. Petitioners are licencees of Toddy shop. Ext.P2 says that the Excise Party seized artificially manufactured toddy added with alcohol from the licensed premises of the petitioners and a case has been registered. For that reason, licence of the petitioners have been suspended and by Ext.P2 petitioners were called upon to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled under Section 26(b) of Abkari Act read with Rule 5(9) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. It is challenging Ext.P2, the writ petition has been filed. 2. In my view, if the violation as alleged in Ext.P2 has been found, prima facie, the officials are justified in issuing Ext.P2. If as stated by the petitioners the allegations are incorrect or that the steps now taken are unwarranted, it is for the petitioners to file their reply to Ext.P2 and contest the matter before the respondents themselves. 3. Since Ext.P2 is only an order of suspension calling upon the petitioners to show cause against the proposal of cancellation, this court WPC 16326/08 :2 : will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P2. Therefore, leaving it to the petitioners to contest the matter before the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of. 4. Considering the fact of filing this writ petition, I direct that if proceedings on Ext.P2 have not been finalised so far, it will be open to the petitioners to file their reply within seven days from today, in which case the respondents will consider the objections of the petitioners and pass final orders on Ext.P2 within two weeks thereafter. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp