Dismissed

Sajimon K.K v. the Excise Commissioner

Kerala HC4 Feb 2021WP(C)/893/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed writ petitions challenging the suspension and cancellation of toddy shop licenses due to one partner's liquor offense and rejecting a request for preferential allotment. The petitioners were found ineligible for preference as one partner breached license conditions.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought in writ petitions dismissed; petitioners not entitled to preferential certificate nor preference in resale.

Sajimon K.K Vs the Excise Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.893 OF 2021(J)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SAJIMON K.K AGED 51 YEARS

¶8

S/O.SREEDHARAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶9

2 K.A.JIMMY AGED 60 YEARS

¶10

S/O. ABRAHAM, KAITHAPADAM HOUSE, ARPOOKKARA (P.O), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶11

3 SHALIJA SUNDARESHAN

¶12

AGED 54 YEARS W/O. SUNDARESHAN, KAMBIYIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM (P.O), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEADQUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033

¶17

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, COLLECTORATE (P.O), KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 002

¶18

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, PONKUNNAM CIRCLE, PONKUNNAM (P.O) KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 121

¶19

4 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ERATTUPETTAH (P.O) KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 121

¶20

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶21

¶22

5 RAJEEV SALU, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. SALU, MAPRAYIL HOUSE, CHOTTUTHODU (P.O), KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 508

¶23

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SRI K P HARISH

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).1689/2021(I), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶30

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

¶31

WP(C).No.1689 OF 2021(I)

¶32

PETITIONERS:

¶33

1 SAJIMON K.K. AGED 51 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, KOOTTIKKAL VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶34

2 K.A JIMMY, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. ABRAHAM, KAITHAPADAM HOUSE, ARPOOKKARA (PO0, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶35

3 SHALIJA SUNDARESHAN AGED 54 YEARS W/O. SUNDARESHAN, KAMBIYIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶36

BY ADVS. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶37

RESPONDENTS:

¶38

1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEADQUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033

¶39

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, COLLECTORATE (PO) KOTTAYAM PIN 686 002

¶40

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, PONKUNNAM CIRCLE, PONKUNNAM (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 121

¶41

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶42

¶43

4 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ERATTUPETTAH (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 121

¶44

5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE (PO) KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686 002

¶45

6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

¶46

R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶47

OTHER PRESENT:

¶48

SR.GP K.P HARISH

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).893/2021(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶51

¶52

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶53

The petitioners along with one Rajeev Salu were the joint licensees of all toddy shops in Group VI in Kanjirappilly excise range for Abkari year 2020-2021. They were the licensees during the previous year and hence got preference for allotment as per Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. While so, Rajeev Salu was found at a public place in possession of a 1.650 milli litre plastic bottle containing 450.0ml illicit liquor on 14.11.2020 at 5.30p.m. Alleging that, he was engaged in the sale of liquor, he was intercepted and items were seized. He ran away from the spot. Ext.P1 in W.P(C).1689 of 2021 is the crime and occurrence report. Due to the registration of crime involving a partner, license for running toddy shop was suspended and by Ext.P4 later cancelled by Ext.P6 order. Ext.P4 and P6 are under challenge in W.P(C).No.893 of 2021. The shops are now notified for resale. The petitioners gave request for giving preferential certificate under Rule 5(2). Since it was not issued, W.P(C).No.1689 of 2021 was filed.

¶54

Heard the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Senior Government Pleader, who opposed both Writ Petition.

¶55

The contention of the learned senior counsel was that the alleged crime took place outside the limits of the shops of the petitioners, that the petitioners were not involved and that offence, if any, committed by Rajeev Salu was not one which amounted to breach of terms of license.

¶56

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶57

¶58

It was contended that, by virtue of Ext.P3 order produced in W.P(C).No.893 of 2021, Rajeev was granted anticipatory bail, which shows that, prosecution did not even had a prima facie case. It was contended that cancellation of license was without adverting to the above facts and liable to be set aside. In W.P(C).No.1689 of 2021, the petitioners sought for preference in the sale and accordingly, sought a direction for issuing the certificate for eligibility of preference.

¶59

To advance the above arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the last paragraph in Rarichan George v. Commissioner of Excise (2008(2) KLT 726) where, it was held that the involvement of a partner in a crime will not stand in the way of remaining partners in claiming preference. It was vehemently contended by the learned senior Government Pleader, who opposed the prayer in the Writ Petition that, the above judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the second clause of Rule 5(1)A of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. The contention of the counsel was that, had that Rule been taken note of, the relief would not have been granted. It was further contended that the decision in Rarichan itself is the authority for holding that involvement in a crime by one of the partners can be a reason for cancellation of license.

¶60

Evidently, the crime is registered under Ss.58 and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. It amount to breach of license condition also in the light of S.26(b) and S.26(bb) of the Abkari Act read with Rule 31 of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. In the light of above, the decisions in

¶61

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶62

¶63

Gopidas v. Shibu Mathew (2004(1) KLT 570) and Rarichan's case (supra) relied by the petitioners will not help the petitioners.

¶64

The learned Senior Government Pleader referred to the Division Bench decision in Sudheesh v. Excise Commissioner ((2019)1 KLT 976) which squarely applies to the facts of the case. It was held that, an infringer of Rules and conditions of license should not get a preferential treatment in subsequent auctions. In the light of above, I feel that the reliefs sought in both Writ Petition cannot be granted.

¶65

In the course of hearing, the learned Senior Government Pleader took strong exception to the assertions in Exts.P12 and P13 of W.P(C).No.1689 of 2021 that, in the course of hearing learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners are entitled to participate without preference, since they were not involved in any NDPS or Abkari case. The learned Government Pleader contended that, he had not made any such submission. The learned Government Pleader is justified in his submission.

¶66

Hence, reliefs as sought in Writ Petitions cannot be granted. This will not preclude the petitioners from participating individually or in combination, if they are not otherwise disqualified.

¶67

Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Sbna

JUDGE

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶73

¶74

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 893/2021

¶75

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶76

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT DATED 15.11.2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 14.11.2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM IN CRL.M.P.NO.1513/2020 DATED 22.12.2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2020 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 30.11.2020 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2021

¶77

W.P(C).893 and 1689 of 2021

¶78

¶79

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1689/2021

¶80

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶81

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT DATED 15-11-2020 IN CRIME NO. 65/2020
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM IN CRL.M.P NO. 1513/2020 DATED 22-12-2020
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-11-2020
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 91ST RESPONDENT DATED 08-01-2021
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11-01- 2021
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17-01- 2021
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17-01- 20219
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17-01- 2021
EXHIBIT P10	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND AND 5TH RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P11	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.

Sajimon K.K v. the Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajimon K.K v. the Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekshmi P.S. Vs Ernakulam Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union

Nidheesh.P. Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

Abdul Rasheed.N. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Dr.Arun S., Vs the Regional Officer

Sajimon K.K. Vs the Excise Commissioner

Sajid.P.S. Vs Ministry of Road Transport