IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 10347 of 2003(F) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. K.KRISHNAN, S/O. KUTTAN, KANAKKANAMKANDI HOUSE, PANIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. K.K.RAVI, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, KARUNAMVELIL VEETTIL, KALLURUTTI P.O., NEELESWARAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. JOSE DEVASYA, S/O. DEVASYA CHOTTANIYIL HOUSE, P.O.UNNIKULAM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 4. RATHNESH K., S/O. RATHNAKARAN SHINU COTTEGE, KACHERI, KOZHIKODE. 5. M.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. K.C.KUTTIRAMAN NAMBIAR, KOUSTHUBHAM P.O.VENGATT, PADUVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. BENNY JOSE S/O. JOSEPH, KONGALAYIL HOUSE, THAZHEKKODE DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 7. BHASKARAN, S/O. PERAVAKUTTY, VATTIMUNDAPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PAYIMBRA, KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. OP 10347/03 F 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SMT. SUDHA DEVI) THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.1.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 17947/03 IN OP 10347/03 F DISMISSED 17.1.2008 SD/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.2.2003. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DT. 18.2.2003. EXT.P2(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.2.2003. EXT.P2(B) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.2.2003. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.2.2003. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.2.2003. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 181.2.2003. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE 6TH PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.2.2003. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.2.2003. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE. K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P NO. 10347 OF 2003 F ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th January, 2008 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: Petitioners were licensees of toddy shops for the year 2002 - 2003. The auction proceedings for the financial year 2002 - 2003 were started only on 19.4.2002, but completed only in June, 2002. In the meantime, the toddy workers started a strike and therefore they were not able to run the shops even from June, 2002. That was the period when the petitioners would have got maximum business. After the strike was withdrawn the petitioners reopened the toddy shops. But, because of the long delay, they did not get one year period to run the business. They were able to run the shops only from July, 2002. According to them, the rental was collected for the entire financial year. Therefore, they are entitled to proportionate reduction, is the case of the petitioners. Exts.P1 to P7 are the representations made to the first respondent through the Circle Inspector of OP 10347/03 F 2 Excise. They seek to deduct the rental paid by them proportionate to the days on which they were not able to run the shops. They also seek a direction to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 to P7. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. It is not open to the petitioners to contend that the contract is frustrated on account of the strike by the abkari workers. I do not see any merit in the Original Petition and it is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, J. O.P NO. 10347 OF 2003 F JUDGMENT 17th January, 2008.