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. 7946 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- RAVEENDRAN PILLAI K., KIZHAKKEDATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOLLAM EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM. 3. S.BINU, KAYOORAYYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, PADINJATTEKARA, THEVALAKARA, KOLLAM. 4. G.MATHEW KUTTY, THEKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MARUTHAMPADI, EDAMULAKKAL, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GP SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.7946 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner, relying on Ext.P1, states that he has conducted abkari shops during three abkari years. But the fact remains that he was not one who conducted an abkari shop during the abkari year 2007-08. Referring to Clause 11 of Ext.P2 Government Order, which contains the abkari policy of the State for the abkari year beginning 1-4- 2008, it is contended that he is entitled to have his case considered on the basis of Ext.P3 representation. The submission is that Clause 11 of Ext.P2 Government Order which provides preference to those persons who were running toddy shops during the preceding three years includes the person who would have conducted the toddy shop for any of the three years preceding 2008-09. This argument does not stand on the basis of Clause 11 WPC7946/2008 -:2:- of Ext.P2 because, a plain reading of the said Clause clearly shows that the preference is only for those who were running the toddy shop during the immediately preceding three years. This is the meaning of the use of the words “the preceding three years” in the first sentence of Clause 11. It cannot mean that the preference will apply to persons who have conducted toddy shop at any time, for three years preceding 2008-09. For these reasons, the claim of the petitioner on the basis of Clause 11 of Ext.P2 fails since he is not running the toddy shop during the abkari year 2007- 08. Writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge.