IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9292 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MATHEWKUTTY, MARUTHUMPADY THEKKEKARA PUTHENVEEDU, EDAMULAKKAL P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHYJIN, SHINE NIVAS, EZHUKONE P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. ANSARI, BABA HOUSE, BABASAHIB NAGAR, PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).9292/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners were the licensees of toddy shops in Group No.III of Kollam Excise Range. Following the registration of Crime No.141/2009 under Sections 55(a) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act, their licence was cancelled. Re-sale was conducted and the 4th respondent was the allottee. Giving preference under Rule 5 (1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, the 4th respondent was proposed to be allotted the shops for the year 2010-11. At that stage, this writ petition was filed contending that the 4th respondent did not conduct the shops based on the re-allotment and therefore he is ineligible for preference. Learned Government Pleader now informs that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the 4th respondent was given the benefit of privilege and shops were allotted. 2. Be that as it may, if the petitioners have a case that the 4th respondent was ineligible for preference, the course available to them is to raise their contentions before the departmental W.P.(C).9292/10 2 authorities concerned, at least at the stage of confirmation and if, after a decision is taken, they are still aggrieved, approach this Court and get the issue adjudicated. In this case, petitioners have not moved the departmental authorities. Therefore leaving it open to the petitioners to move the departmental authorities concerned with their grievance, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs