IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 792 of 2008() -------------------- APPELLANT/ PETITINER ----------------------- K.G.SATHYANANDAN, POOVANTHURUTHU VEEDU KADAKKAVOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.D.P.RENU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,TAXES AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAKAKAM EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR KILIMANNOOR RANGE, ATTINGAL. 4. SRI. SASI, PLANKALAPUTHEN VEETTIL KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.M.R.SABU FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A. No.792 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the official respondents to renew in his favour, the licence of toddy shop No.6 of Kilimanoor Excise Range. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant submits he was running T.S.No.6, as the licensee, for the last several years. While so, during the Abkari year 2007-2008, the Government decided to club together 5 to 7 toddy shops into one group and auction them together. T.S.Nos.1 to 7 were clubbed as group No.1 of Kilimanoor Excise Range in the auction for the year 2007-2008. The appellant along with 4th respondent and three others jointly bid for the licence of the said group for the year 2007-2008. The same was granted to them as per Ext.P3. For the Abkari year 2008-2009, the petitioner, 4th respondent and others bid for W.A.No.792/2008 2 licence of Group No.1, individually. As far as the said group is concerned, it was found that the petitioner, the 4th respondent and other bidders stood on the same footing. All of them were joint licensees for the preceding year. So, the competent authority decided to draw lots and the lot fell in favour of the 4th respondent. So, he was granted licence for the Abkari year 2008-2009, for the toddy shop Nos.1 to 7 in group No. 1 of Kilimanoor Excise Range. 3. The petitioner filed the writ petition contending that he was running shop No.6 for the last several years and even after the commencement of the group system he continued to run the said shop. According to him, since he was the licensee of the shop No.6, he was entitled to get preference for renewal of the licence of that shop for the year 2008-2009. But, instead of acknowledging his preference, as provided under Rule 5 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, the 4th respondent was preferred. So, he filed the writ petition praying for appropriate reliefs. 4. The official respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that during the year 2007-2008, the group was auctioned by 5 persons including the appellant and the 4th respondent. For W.A.No.792/2008 3 this year, that is, for 2008-2009, out of the five persons, 4 persons submitted separate bids. Since all of them were treated as equal, for the purpose of grant of licence of Group No.1, lots were drawn and the lot fell in favour of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit on the above lines. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. The learned Senior counsel, Sri.M.Dharmadan appearing for the appellant submitted that the arrangement during the year 2007-08 of joint licence was an informal arrangement and he was always running shop No.6. Therefore, as per the rules, he is entitled to get preference. The Abkari policy produced as Ext.R4(a) cannot take away his rights under the statutory rules. 6. We heard the learned Government Pleader, Sri.M.R.Sabu, for the official respondents and Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan for the 4th respondent. We notice that following Ext.R4(a) Abkari policy, the statutory rules were correspondingly amended. In this case, the appellant as well as W.A.No.792/2008 4 the 4th respondent was joint licensee of the shops in Group No.1 of Kilimanoor Range during the year 2007-2008. So, when both of them applied separately for licence of the shops in the said group they were treated as equals and therefore lots were drawn. We find nothing wrong with the procedure followed by the department for grant of licence. If one of the joint licensees managed a particular shop, it is an internal arrangement between the licensees. In the eye of law that shop is also run by all the licensees. For this year, the appellant also bid for the licence of Group No.1 and not for the licence of T.S.No.6. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the grant of licence to the 4th respondent and refused to grant any relief to the appellant. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps