Disposed

Salis Bijar v. the Commissioner of Excise

Kerala HC29 Jan 2015WP(C)/1849/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, acquitted of charges under Abkari Act, challenged cancellation of licence. Court disposed of writ without adjudicating merits, directing respondents to consider a claim for restoration or fresh licence in the next year subject to statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's claim for restoration or fresh licence in next Abkari year subject to statutory requirements.

Salis Bijar Vs the Commissioner of Excise — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/9TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 1849 of 2015 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SALIS BIJAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, ATHIKOTTIL HOUSE, KAVUNGAL, MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.RAKESH.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

¶12

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.K. SHERIN.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 1849 of 2015 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 20-10-2010 AS NO. XAI-24811/10.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-03-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2NDE RESPONDENT AS NO. M5-6000/09.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-10-2014 IN S.C.NO. 45/2012 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶26

W.P.(c) No. 1849 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2015

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶30

Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was a licencee of Toddy Shops group No.1/2010-2011 of Parappanangadi Range, faced criminal proceedings in Crime No. 354/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act. While the criminal proceedings were pending, the petitioner's licence was cancelled. Eventually, the petitioner was acquitted through Exhibit P3 judgment in S.C. No. 45/2012 on 25.10.2014. Having sought restoration of his licence and having failed, the petitioner has

¶31

W.P.(c) No. 1849 of 2015

¶32

¶33

approached this Court.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner's licence was cancelled in 2010 when the crime was registered, but the petitioner earned his acquittal only in 2014. According to her, in the interregnum the Government went ahead with auctioning of the licence of those particular shops and awarded it to another person who was the successful bidder. Since at present there is a licencee for the Toddy shops in question, the petitioner's claim could be considered only for the next Abkari year, subject to other statutory parameters.

¶35

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meanwhile if there is any auctioning of other licences concerning shops in the vicinity, the petitioner may be given preferential treatment, if he participates. At any rate, this Court cannot given such an omnibus direction. It is, however, evident that if there is any statutory provision that protects the rights of the petitioner on his acquittal, he can as well take advantage of the same.

¶36

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the

¶37

W.P.(c) No. 1849 of 2015

¶38

¶39

respective submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for restoration or for issuance of fresh licence in the next Abkari year, subject to the petitioner's fulfilling all other statutory requirements. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶41

DMR/-

Salis Bijar v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salis Bijar v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saniya M Babu Moopan Vs Pathiyoor Grama Panchayath

Ramachandran Vs the Excise Commissioner

Johnson @ Joy Vs Thevalakkara Grama Panchayat

Amina Vs Keezattur Grama Panchayat

Samuel Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Antony Joseph Vs the Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram.