IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23183 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.BALA PANICKER, S/O SANKU PANKICKER, AGED 55 YEARS, PLAVILA LEKSHMY VILASOM, KOTTAKKAKOM, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDL. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 23183 OF 2008 I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18h day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P7. Ext. P7 is an order passed by the 4th respondent. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a licensee of toddy shop No. 22/08-09 at Kadavoor Excise Range. He was initially granted Exts. P1 and P2 transport permits which were ordered to be frozen by Ext. P3. That was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15987/08. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P4 judgment directing that fresh orders be passed with notice to the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, he was issued a show cause notice and Ext. P5 is his reply. Petitioner contends that in Ext. P5 he placed reliance on Ext. P6 by which according to the petitioner, permit was granted to a person who is similarly situated. Despite this, Ext. P7 order was passed by the 4th respondent without adverting to Ext. P6. W.P.(C) No. 23183 OF 2008 -2- 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent justifying Ext. P7. According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent though in total 17 permits were granted they were all ordered to be frozen, but however, having regard to the circumstances of each case 15 were revived. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce any recommendation from the 3rd respondent. It is also stated that by the show cause notice, petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing, but then petitioner did not appear and that he had only filed Ext. P5. 5. As already noticed, petitioner is heavily relying on Ext. P6 which according to the petitioner is an order granted in favour of a person who is similarly situated. When the petitioner is relying on Ext. P6, and when relief is declined to the petitioner, it is for the respondents to give cogent reasons as to why the petitioner is not entitled to parity in treatment. 6. A reading of Ext. P7 shows that the 4th respondent has not adverted to Ext. P6 at all while passing Ext. P7. In my view, for ignoring Ext. P6 altogether and declining relief to the petitioner, Ext. P7 deserves to be set aside. W.P.(C) No. 23183 OF 2008 -3- 7. Accordingly, Ext. P7 will stand set aside and the 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in this matter duly adverting to Ext. P6. Orders as above shall be passed by the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 8. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-