VENU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was granted the privilege to vend toddy in shop Nos. 36 to 40 in Group No. VIII of Kodungallur Excise Range, for the year 2009-2010. But, he was not granted licence to run toddy shop No. 36, for the reason that the building, wherein it is proposed to be housed, comes within the objectionable distance prescribed under Rule 7(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules'). The appellant's claim for licence was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Thrissur, by Ext.P5 order dated 11.8.2009. His revision against Ext.P5 order was dismissed by the Excise Commissioner, by Ext.P8 order dated 27.10.2009. The relevant portion of Ext.P8 reads as follows:

(2.) It is common ground that the toddy shop concerned was licensed in the same premises, where the appellant moved for licence, during the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The appellant claims that during earlier years also, the shop was housed in that building. But, the shop remained unlicensed in the year 2008-2009, Therefore, according to the appellant, he is entitled to get the protection of the second proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 7(2) reads as follows:

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. They reiterated the respective contentions, which we have mentioned above. If the contentions of the respondents are correct, the appellant can get the licence, if only the shop was functioning in the same premises all throughout, including the immediately preceding year. If that be so, the words "which remained unlicensed for want of unobjectionable site" in the said proviso would become redundant. The rule could have been drafted to read that if a shop was functioning in the premises for the last few years, including the immediately preceding year, then the shop can be located there, even if the site is objectionable. When a rule is interpreted, every word used in it should be given the normal meaning assigned to it. No word could be taken as redundant or superfluous. This is one of the settled principles of interpretation. So, having regard to the facts of the case, we think, the appellant is entitled to get the protection of the second proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Rules, That means, the prohibition regarding location of the shop within 400 meters of Temple, Church, etc. will not apply to the appellant, if the shop is housed in the building wherein the shop was licensed upto the year 2007- 08. It is declared so.