Allowed

Unnikrishnan and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC17 Jun 2009WP(C)/7400/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that under Abkari Policy 2009-10, persons not yet formally charged under Section 211 Cr.P.C. are not excluded from licence priority, even if allegations exist, and ordered officers to allow petitioners to participate in sales.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to apply declarations on case-to-case basis to permit petitioners to participate in sale for 2009-2010.

Unnikrishnan and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 7400 of 2009(I) --------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-------------------------

¶8

1. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, KAREKUNNATH HOUSE, NADUVATTOM DESOM, THIRUVEGAPURA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SASIKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAPPALAM P.O., VILAYOOR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, PALAKKAD.

¶16

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

5. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶19

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.7569 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.( C) NO.7400/2009

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.11.08 IN WPC. NO.34126/08 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶25

P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.11.08 IN IA. NO.961/08 IN WA. 2867/07 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶26

P3:- COPY OF THE ABKARI POLICY FOR THE YEAR 2009-10, NO.G.O.(MS) NO.27/09/TD DT. 13.2.09.

¶27

P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 4.3.09 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 21.3.07 IN WPC. NO.9037/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶29

P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 5.3.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO RESPONDENTS 2,4 AND 6.

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

TSS

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶34

W.P(C).Nos.7400, 7442, 7460, 7486, 7656, 7658, 7569, 7603, 7835, 8118, 8763, 7905, 8941, 8943 & 9996 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2009

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

These writ petitions are filed on grounds referable to clause (3) of the abkari policy 2009-2010 of the State of Kerala. That clause provides that preference will be given to those persons who are running different toddy shops during the preceding three years. Persons who were exonerated from abkari cases are also eligible to such preference. Persons charged with abkari offences, other than under Section 56B of the Abkari Act, will not be granted licence. The provision that the persons charged with abkari offences other than under Section 56 of the Abkari Act will not be granted licence fell for consideration of this Court in Vijayan v. Excise Commissioner {2002(3) KLT 646}, interpreting the words “charged with” in the Rules as they existed in 2002. This Court, referring to Section 211 of Cr.P.C., laid down that

¶37

Page numbers

¶38

WPC.7400/09 & con. cases

¶39

“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 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.”

¶40

Applying that judgment, W.P(C).8756/09 and connected matters were decided holding that unless charge has been framed by the Court for abkari offences against a person in terms of Section 211 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be excluded from being granted licence on a ground referable to any allegation against him as to the commission of any offence punishable under the abkari law. In view of the declaration of law contained in that judgment, in all these writ petitions where there are no charges framed by the court against the petitioners, they are entitled to the benefit of clause (3) of the policy document, if they are otherwise entitled to that priority. It is so declared.

¶41

WPC.7400/09 & con. cases

¶42

Page numbers

¶43

Following the above declaration, the abkari officers will ensure that the declarations made herein is applied on a case to case basis in relation to each of the petitioners in these writ petitions and they will be permitted to participate in the sale for the year 2009-2010. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.

¶44

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.

¶45

kkb.17/6.

Unnikrishnan and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moosa Haji Vs Malappuram Municipality

C.Dharmaraj Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sajitha Beevi Vs Adoor Municipality Represented by Its

Umesh Challiyil Vs Sri.K.P.Rajendran

Saju Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Soman Vs State of Kerala and Others