KODUNGALLUR KALLUCHETHU VYAVASAYA Vs. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to the grant of toddy depot licence under the provisions of the Toddy Deport Licence Rules, 1965. The petitioner is a co-operative society constituted for the purpose of conducting toddy business in the State. It is conducting 86 toddy shops of Kodungalloor range as per licence issued under the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Rules for the year 2001-2002. The petitioner, it is stated, had obtained permit for Inter Division Transportation of toddy from Palakkad Excise Division on 30.9.2001 for transportation of 1020 litres of coconut toddy from the limits of Chittoor range (Ext. P2). The petitioner then applied for toddy depot licence on 7.4.2001 (Ext. P6). Since the first respondent did not pass any orders on the said application inspite of reminders the petitioner approached this court by filing writ petition O.P. No. 19629 of 2001, which was disposed of by judgment dated 9.7.2001 (Ext. P4). The first respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Toddy Deport Licence Rules within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to the said direction the first respondent passed an order dated 27.7.2001 (Ext. P1) whereby he rejected the said application. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this original petition.

(2.) A statement is filed by the second respondent. It is stated therein that the petitioner had submitted an application for sanctioning of Toddy depot in building No. IV/370 of Sree Narayanapuram Panchayat in Kodungalloor Taluk to the first respondent through the second respondent by registered post and that the said application was received in the office of the second respondent only on 3.6.2001 and the same was forwarded to the first respondent on 2.7.2001 with remarks for necessary action. It is stated that toddy shop licences were issued in the name of Sri. Gopinathan, who is the licensee of all toddy shops in Kodungalloor range, that the said Gopinathan had remitted an amount of Rs. 1,29,000/- being the tree tax in Kodungalloor range for the first half year April, 2001-September, 2001, that there is no short tappable coconut trees during this year and that for getting more benefit and excess profit for the society the President Sri Gopinathan applied for the inter range tapping of 680 coconut trees from the limits of toddy shop Nos. 37, 38 and 39/2001-2002 of Chittoor range. It is also stated that the petitioner society is not entitled to get the toddy depot licence in Kodungalloor range, that toddy depot licence are ordinarily be issued to the persons who have taken all the toddy shops of range enbloc, that the petitioner is not a person but they are only a registered society, which is represented by its President and Secretary elected by the members of the Society, that the person elected could be substituted at any stage as per the changing decisions of the society, that since the moved by the society represented the Secretary who is not responsible in his personal capacity is not eligible to get a toddy depot licence as per exist rules and that in the above circumstances respondents are statutorily bound to issue toddy depot licence.

(3.) Sri M.K. Damodaran, learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that the first respondent did not apply mind to the application submitted by the petitioner and he had passed the impugned order mechanically and in arbitrary manner simply on the basis of the report submitted by the second respondent. The Senior counsel also submitted that the reason stated in the said order that the petitioner has not fulfilled the Toddy Depot Licence Rule No. 1 and Toddy Deport licence condition No. 2 are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The senior counsel further submitted that as per the provisions of the Toddy Depot Licence Rules the first respondent cannot deny toddy depot licence provided the conditions specified in the rules are satisfied and that in the present case the petitioner had got licence in respect of 86 toddy shops in Kodungalloor range and for the proper and effective supply of toddy to all the shops a centralized depot is absolutely necessary. The senior counsel also relied on the decision of this court in Ayyappan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (1998(2) KLT 849) and the circular dated 3.7.1999 (Ext. P3) issued by the Government in implementation of the direction contained in the aforesaid judgment and submitted that the first respondent was bound to grant the toddy depot licence to the petitioner as requested in the application (Ext. P6).