IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17720 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DASAPUTHRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KOCHUTHOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMON P.O., PERUMTHURUTHU DESOM, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.), ADV. SRI. M.G. KARTHIKEYAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 17722/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 17720 & 17722 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 15, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P8 orders passed by the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 17720 of 2008 is the licensee of toddy shops in Group No.VI of Kollam Excise Range of Kollam Division. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) 17722 of 2008 is concerned, he is the licensee of toddy shops in Group No.III of Chathannoor Excise Range of Kollam Division. By Exts.P2 to P6 in these two writ petitions, petitioners have applied for permits to bring toddy from Chittur Excise Range in Palakkad Division. Such request was made in terms of Rule 11A of the Tree Tax Rules. The request made by the petitioners was to be considered by the 1st respondent and if his finding is in their favour, he has to forward the requests to the 2nd respondent who, in turn, has to issue necessary permits. However, the 1st respondent turned down the request by Ext.P8 order and it is challenging Ext.P8 orders, these writ petitions have been filed. Rule 11A of the Tree Tax Rules reads as follows:- WP(C)17720 & 17722 of 2008 2 “If circumstances so warrant that trees situated outside district shall be tapped and toddy drawn therefrom transported to the shops, the Assistant Excise Commissioner of the district where the trees are situated may issue necessary licence and transport permit as per rules subject to realisation of such tree tax and fee as in force. 3. Thus, a reading of the Rule shows that if the 1st respondent is satisfied that the circumstance so warrant that trees situated outside the District shall be tapped and toddy transported to the shops of the petitioners, he may issue necessary licence and permit. 4. A reading of Ext.P8 orders shows that the 1st respondent was more concerned about the number of licensed tappers engaged in this behalf by the respective licensees. He has not appreciated the case of the petitioners in the context of the provisions contained in Rule 11A of the Tree Tax Rules. 5. The petitioners have also a case that in the previous years they were the licensees of the very same shops and that they were granted permit for transportation of toddy from Chittur Taluk as they have now requested by Exts.P2 to P6. WP(C)17720 & 17722 of 2008 3 They have also a case that in respect of many of the licensees within Kollam Division also, such permits have been granted by the Excise Authorities. On these grounds they plead that they are discriminated. 6. A reading of Ext.P8 in these writ petitions shows that none of these matters have been considered by the 1st respondent while considering Exts.P2 to P6 requests made by the petitioners in these cases. In my view, for this reason itself the matter needs reconsideration and for that purpose I quash Ext.P8. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 11A and the other provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-