IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9581 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.DEVADAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE VELAUDHAN, MANNATH HOUSE, PAPPADY DHONI.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678009. BY ADV. SRI.S.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. A.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, CHEMBAKASHEERI THOTTATHIL VEEDU, THATHAMANGALAM. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DIST. BY GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No. 9581 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the licensee of toddy shops in Group No.6 of the Nenmara Excise Range in Palakkad District. He is an accused in Crime No.200/2007 of Nenmara police station involving offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. He made Ext.P5 application for obtaining a certificate, to claim preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (in short 'the Rules'). That application was rejected by Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition is filed. 2. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules provide for preference and one of the conditions is that there shall be no abkari case registered against the person concerned, for offences other than under Section 56 of the Abkari Act. In this case, admittedly petitioner is an accused in Crime No.200/2007 and offence alleged is under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. If that be so, he does not satisfy the condition specified in Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules and therefore Ext.P6 cannot be faulted. W.P.(C).9581/2010 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred me to Ext.P1 judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C).17567/2009 where following Vijayan's case, (2002 (3) KLT 646), it was held that since charge is not framed by the Court, preference cannot be denied. First of all, the judgment was rendered in the context of clause 3 of the policy, prevailing for the year 2008-09. Insofar as this year is concerned, the entitlement has to be regulated by provisions of Rule 5(1)(a), the effect of which is as held above. Therefore, Ext.P1 judgment does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs