IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7993 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, BABY VILASOM, KARIKKODU P.O., MANGAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOLLAM EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM. 4. SHYJIN M., SHYNE NIVAS, EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DIST. R1 TO R3 BY SR GP SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, ALONG WITH WPC 7994/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)Nos.7993 & 7994 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed contending that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the preference given in Clause 11 of G.O.(MS) No.38/2008/TD dated 29-2-2008 contending the abkari policy for the abkari year commencing 1-4-2008. The plea is that the persons who were running the respective shops for the abkari year 2007-08 were no more conducting those shops since their licence have been cancelled and that therefore the petitioners, who were conducting those shops for the three preceding years before 2007-08, are entitled to preference. Such an argument does not stand on the basis of the clear terms of the first sentence of Clause 11, which has been interpreted by me today in the judgment in WP(C)No.7946 of 2008 to mean that the preference is available only to WPC7993&7994/08 -:2:- those who had conducted the shops for the three preceding years immediately preceding the abkari year commencing 1-4-2008. It makes no difference whether the shop was or not was conducted by any licensee during the financial year 2007-08 because, the petitioners have no case that they conducted the shops during the abkari year. Writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought leave to preserve the right of the petitioners to challenge the validity of Clause 11. Obviously, this judgment does not touch upon the question. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.