(1.) The petitioner participated in the auction for Toddy shops. Based on his application, he was granted licence. Admittedly by the petitioner, grant of licence was on the basis of the preference in Rule 5(2)(a), since the petitioner had not conducted more than three shops in any of the years during the period from 1996 to 2001. Now the licence has been cancelled as per Ext. P1 when it was later brought to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner had conducted toddy shops Nos. 144, 145,146,165,166 and 167 of the Cherthala Range during the years 1996-2001. It is admitted before me by the petitioner that he had conducted the above shops during the said years. Thus he has conducted more than three shops. When one has conducted more than three shops in any of the years during the period from 1996-2001, necessarily that incumbent is not entitled for the preference under Rule 5(2)(a). Therefore, as the petitioner has obtained licence based on the preference shown under rule 5(2)(a), it is liable to be cancelled.
(2.) Petitioner submits that before passing Ext. P1 order, he had not been given an opportunity. Even if the petitioner had been given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing Ext. P1, I do not think that the decision will be otherwise, since it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had conducted more than 3 toddy shops in the years from 1996-2001. Therefore, there is no reason for interference on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. This aspect is covered by the apex court decision in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Alighan (2000 [7] SCC 529).
(3.) Another contention raised by the petitioner is that in an earlier original petition, O.P. No. 10735/2002 under similar circumstances, this court had directed that the petitioner in that original petition should not be debarred only for the reason that he had conducted more than three shops. That judgment does not disclose conclusively that it was a case of preferential grant.