IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38075 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. T.K. SASIDHARAN, S/O. THANDASSARY KUNJIKRISHNAN, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. V.G. SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. VALIYAPARAMBIL GOVINDAN, CHEMBOOKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 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, THRISSUR. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 38075 OF 2008 (G) ==================== Dated this the 26th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were contractors of arrack shops in Group No.IV in Trichur Excise Range during the Abkari year 1993-94. Defaults were committed and amounts are remaining unpaid. According to them, they had applied for availing of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme announced during the year 2000, introducing Rule 6 (25A) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules 1974 and the application made was not accepted. Thereupon they filed O.P.No.25094 of 2000 which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing that fresh orders be passed in the manner as directed therein. For reasons of their own, petitioners did not pursue the matter further and did not avail of the benefit of the scheme. 2. Meanwhile by Ext.P2 order dated 26.05.2008, Amnesty Scheme was announced by the Government of Kerala, the period of which has been extended by separate orders, till 31.12.2008. Petitioners made application for availing of the benefit of Ext.P2 amnesty scheme and that has been rejected by Ext.P7 on the ground that in view of Ext.P1, petitioners have to discharge the liability as quantified in terms of the 2000 scheme. WPC 38075/08 :2 : 3. According to the petitioners even though they did not avail of the benefit of the 2000 scheme, they are entitled to claim the benefit of the 2008 scheme announced by Ext.P2. Complaining of rejection of their application as per Ext.P7, they have filed Ext.P8 before the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, petitioners are praying to quash Ext.P7 and to declare that they are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2. 4. It is true that by Ext.P1 judgment, petitioners were held entitled to the benefit of 2000 scheme and that the petitioners did not avail of the benefits thereof. However, that does not make them ineligible to claim the benefit of Ext.P2 amnesty scheme announced by respondents in 2008. It has to be remembered that the beneficiaries of Ext.P2 are all defaulters who have been given an opportunity to liquidate their liability by paying the amounts as specified in Ext.P2. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners have defaulted in paying the amount when they were the licensees or that despite an application made for the benefit of the 2000 scheme, they did not avail of the benefit thereof, even inspite of Ext.P1 judgment, does not mean that the petitioners are ineligible for the benefit of Ext.P2. Therefore the rejection of their application for the reasons mentioned in Ext.P7 is unsustainable. In view of this, I set aside Ext.P7 WPC 38075/08 :3 : and I direct that the petitioners are eligible to avail of the benefit of Ext.P2 amnesty scheme. In view of this, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6, the application made by the petitioners for the benefit of Ext.P2 scheme and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp