KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by the toddy shop contractor of Shop No.7, Perumanur, Ravipuram (Cochin area) against the Travancore-Cochin State invoking this Courts jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution and S. 18 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act. The relief asked for in the petition is that the Court should call for the records and quash the (Government) order D. Dis 6139/50 R.D. dated 4.10.1950 and direct the Board of Revenue to refrain from enforcing the contemplated transfer of location of toddy shop No. 7 and from interfering with the conduct of the petitioners business at the present site by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ. The order sought to be quashed is marked here as Ext. A, and the relevant portion thereof reads thus:

(2.) The circumstances which lead to this petition can be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner was the highest bidder at the sale held under the authority of Government of the privilege of vending toddy in the above shop for the period of 17.8.1950 to 31.3.1952 and the sale was in due course confirmed in his name. He obtained a temporary license and opened the shop at a site selected by him. Objections were however raised to the shop being conducted at that site by the licensee of toddy shop No. 6, by the general public and also by local authorities and institutions. The Board of Revenue therefore refused to approve the site selected by the petitioner and wanted the petitioner to shift the shop to the place in which it was held in 1124 or 1125. The petitioner immediately moved the Honourable Minister for Excise to rescind this order and permit him to continue the shop at the site selected by him. The petition filed in that behalf is dated 16.9.1950 and is marked as Ext. C in this proceeding. The Minister permitted the petitioner provisionally to continue to run the shop at the place chosen by him and called for a report from the Revenue Board about the petitioners complaint. That report is Ext. VIII here. Ultimately the Honourable Minister declined to interfere with the Revenue Boards decision that the petitioner should shift his shop from its present site. This was on 4.10.1950 and it is that order which forms the subject of this proceeding. The petitioner filed an application to review the order, but that application also met with the same fate as the original one. This Original Petition was filed immediately after, namely, on 12.11.1950. An interim order prohibiting Government from enforcing the order to shift the shop to another site was first granted by the Court for a limited period and that order was afterwards allowed to remain in force until the disposal of this petition.

(3.) The petitioners case is that the site selected by him for his shop is within the limits prescribed by the Government Notification under which the sale has been held and that the opposition to his continuance there was all manipulated by the present licensee of shop No. 6 who held the license for Shop No. 7 in previous years and that the objections raised to it are all unfounded and raised purely to spite the petitioner. It would appear that Narayanan, the old licensee did not like the petitioner competing with him at the sale of this shop and it is seen that that Narayanan has been openly moving the authorities to get the petitioners shop shifted from its present site. Among the grounds urged the one that the shop was within prohibited distance from his shop No. 6 was given sufficient prominence.