IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8756 of 2008(P) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. K.R.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, BEENA BHAVANAM, PAZHAKULAM PO ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. AJITHKUMAR,S/O. ANIRUDHAN, KOTTKKATU THEKKETHARAYIL HOUSE, BHARANIKKAVU PO MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. D.PRASAD,S/O. DAMODHARAN KUTTIVILAYIL HOUSE,NOORANADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008 ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 9043/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).Nos. 8756, 9043,9044, 9045, 9046, 9047, 9048, 9049, 9050, 9051, 9052, 9053, 9076, 9077, 9078, 9079, 9080, 9082, 9247, 9248, 9249, 9250 and 9251OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T These writ petitions are filed seeking similar reliefs in relation to the Abkari year commencing 1.4.2008. 2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. C.C.Thomas assisted by Adv. Sri. M.G. Karthikeyan for the petitioners and learned senior Government Pleader Smt. Anu Sivaraman for the respondents. 3. By GO(MS)No.38/2008/TD dated 29.02.2008, Government have issued the Abkari policy order for the year 2008-09. Clause (11) thereof, which, relates to the toddy sector, provides, among other things, that persons “charged with” abkari offences other than under Section 56 will not be granted license. 4. Interpreting the words “charged with” in the Rules, as they existed in 2002, this court laid down in Vijayan vs. Excise Commissioner (2002 (3) KLT 646), referring to Section 211 of Cr.P.C., that a person can be said to be “charged with” an offence when, on the basis of a final report and the relevant details collected during investigation and after perusing the final report filed by the W.P.(C).No. 8756 OF 2008 and 2 connected cases. investigating officer before the court, the court proceeds to frame and charge. It was held that only then, a person could be said to be “charged with” an offence. 5. After Vijayan's case (supra) was decided in 2002, the word “charged” was changed in 2003-04 to be “booked”. Thereafter, it was again modified as “registered”. As already noticed, clause (11) of the Abkari Policy Order dated 29.2.2008 provides only that the persons “charged with” abkari offence, that too other than under Section 56, would be excluded from grant of license. Such change made by the Government, as per its Abkari Policy Order dated 29.2.2008, has been issued being fully aware of the interpretation given by this court to the words “charged with”, in Vijayan's case (supra). Therefore it has to be clearly understood that in declaring the Abkari Policy for the year commencing 1.4.2008, Clause (11) in that Government Order has been made, having regard to how the words “charged with” has been construed and laid down by this court in Vijayan's case (supra). Therefore, unless a charge has been framed by the court for an abkari offence against a person in terms of Section 211 of the Cr.P.C., he cannot be excluded from being granted license, on a ground referable to any allegation against him as to the commission of any offence punishable under the abkari law. It is so declared. W.P.(C).No. 8756 OF 2008 and 3 connected cases. 6. An apprehension of the petitioners that the rules may be framed in a manner different from policy also does not stand because once the Government declares the policy, the rules have to be framed only in terms of the policy unless the Government changes its policy, which is well within its authority. 7. In view of the declaration, as above, on the interpretation of the last sentence of clause(11) of GO(MS)No.38/2008/TD dated 29.02.2008, issued by Government of Kerala, no further direction is necessary, since the Government and the Excise officials shall act in terms of the declaration contained herein because the position in terms of law being so, it is not open to the officials of the Excise Department to refuse participation, of any person against whom there is no charge framed by the criminal court. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE bkn/-