IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10211 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI, KISHAKKEDATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, KILIKOLLUR VILLAGE, KALLUMTHAZHAM.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES (EXCISE DEPARTMENT) SECREETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 6. SRI. ANSARI, BABA SAHIB NAGAR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10211 of 2010 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's allegation is that the 6th respondent has been illegally given preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 in respect of T.S.Nos.12 to 16 in Group No.III of Kollam Excise Range for the abkari year 2009-10. According to the petitioner, 6th respondent is ineligible for such preference. 2. He says that initially the licence in respect of the toddy shops were granted to two other persons and that on cancellation of the said licence, the shops were resold in favour of the 6th respondent only on 15/03/2010. It is stated that in between 15/13/2010 and the date of auction for the year 2010-2011, 6th respondent did not conduct the shop, and therefore, he is ineligible for preference under the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. In my view, the question whether the 6th respondent is eligible or not is a matter, primarily, to be considered by the departmental authorities. Even according to the petitioner, the allotment in favour WP(C) No.10211/2010 -2- of the 6th respondent on preferential basis has not been confirmed by the 2nd respondent so far. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent and it is for that authority to consider the objections raised by the petitioner. It is only thereafter can the petitioner have any course of action to move this writ petition. It is directed that if any such representation has been made by the petitioner, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg