VIJAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY notification dated 30. 3. 2002, amendments had been made to the Kerala Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules, 1972 and the new policy provided for a system of running toddy shops by vending the shops by public sale, shop by shop, for a fixed annual rental as licence fee. The second respondent had notified the details of shops of Trivandrum Excise Division. The new rules, by R. 5 (2) (a) provided for a preference to applicants who had previous experience in conducting shops between 1996-2001. The petitioner had previous experience which could have been accounted as per the rules and being the lone applicant for toddy shop No. 4 Pravachambalam of Neyyattinkara Range, had been provisionally declared as grantee of the privilege on the sale conducted on 20. 4. 2002. The averments in the Original Petition indicate that towards the annual rental, welfare fund contribution and other deposits she had paid a total amount of Rs. 4 lakhs by Demand Draft.

(2.) BUT, on the same day, a re-sale of the above shop was conducted by the District Collector, noticing an objection that the petitioner had not remitted 50% of the arrears pending against her as on the date of sale notification, as contemplated under R. 5 of the general conditions. R. 5 (3) (iii)for the purpose of reference have the following effect: "no individual is eligible for the privilege of any shop, if he is a defaulter of Abkari arrears, Sales Tax arrears or any other arrears due to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund or the Kerala Abkari workers Welfare Fund unless he produces from the Circle Inspector of Excise, sales Tax Officer, the Authority of the said Welfare Fund Board or any other officer authorised in this behalf as the case may be a certificate to the effect that no dues are outstanding against him or that he has remitted before the date of sale of the shop 50% of the arrears pending against him as on the date of sale notification".

(3.) THE petitioner refers to Ext. P2 and submits that there was a failure of jurisdiction on the part of the Excise Commissioner in coming to the conclusion that the District Collector acted properly in the matter of cancellation of the sale and forfeiture.