JOSE Vs. ASST EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P6 order of first respondent, cancelling Ext. P1 bar licence issued to him. On the strength of the said licence which is valid till 1-4-1992, petitioner had been running a bar at 'Hotel Mayura', Mannuthy, Thrissur. Petitioner was not granted necessary permits for drawing supplies of foreign liquor, for use in the bar since sometime in August, 1991. Upon that, petitioner moved this court by OP 8938/ 91. Meanwhile, a Memo was issued to the petitioner, alleging violation of S.56(b) & (c) of the Abkari Act. On 9-9-1991, an interim direction was issued in that petition, directing first respondent to enquire into certain allegations, take a decision and submit a report by 12-9-1991. On 12-9-1991, the Addition Advocate General appearing for respondents, submitted that petitioner had violated conditions of the licence, and that action was contemplated against him for that reason. After hearing both sides, an order was passed:

(2.) The direction was to pass such orders as the Assistant Excise Commissioner "is entitled to". Ext. P6 order followed, cancelling Ext. P1 licence and imposing a fine. The reasons stated for this is that, petitioner had allowed one K.P. John to run the bar since 10-7-1991, violating R.19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules and condition No. 13 of Ext. P1 licence. Enquiries made by the Department and admissions made by K.P. John and one O. J. Emmanual, regarding transfer of business, persuaded first respondent to cancel the licence.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner challenged Ext. P6 order on grounds of malafide and as violative of principles of natural justice, in that it did not adhere to requirements of notice postulated by S.67A of the Abkari Act. It is also alleged that R.34 of the Foreign Liquor Rules (hereinafter referred as "the Rules"), conferring powers on the first respondent to cancel a licence, was ultravires.