OMANAKUTTAN C Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are joint licensees of toddy shops Nos.7 to 11 in Group No.II of Kollam Excise Range. On 28.5.2010, respondents 3 and 4 seized 33 litres of spirit from the premises of toddy shop No.8 in Group No.II of Kollam Excise Range while it was being unloaded from an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-05 D 3335 which was stationed at a distance of 5 meters from the entrance to the said toddy shop. Pursuant thereto, Crime No.49 of 2010 of Kollam Excise Range was registered against the petitioners and the owner and the driver of the autorickshaw. THE third petitioner is the first accused, the driver and the owner of the autorickshaw are accused 2 and 3, the first petitioner is the 5th accused and the second petitioner is the 4th accused in the aforesaid crime.

(2.) AFTER Crime No.49 of 2000 was registered, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kollam, reported the said fact to the Commissioner of Excise. The Commissioner of Excise thereupon issued Ext.P1 order dated 29.5.2010 suspending the licences issued to the petitioners in respect of toddy shops Nos.7 to 11 in Group No.II of Kollam Excise Range. The petitioners were also called upon to show cause why the licences issued to them in respect of the aforesaid toddy shops should not be cancelled. Reference was made to section 26(b) of the Abkari Act and rules 5(19) and 7(31) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002.

(3.) I heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.Manu, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that seizure of spirit from the premises of one particular shop cannot be a reason to cancel the licences in respect of the other toddy shops in the group. The first petitioner has in Ext.P2 representation filed by him in reply to Ext.P1 show cause notice stated that though the licences stand in the joint names of the petitioners, they are running the shops separately and therefore, any irregularity committed by the licensee who was running toddy shop No.8 (the 3rd petitioner) cannot be a reason to suspend the licences issued in respect of the other shops. I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Rarichan George v. Commissioner of Excise (2008 (2) KLT 726) repelled a similar contention and held that the private agreement between the licensees of a group of toddy shops to regulate the business is not binding on the Government and such agreements are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether the licences issued to a group of persons in respect of a group of shops is liable to be cancelled or not.