V V SWAMYNADHAN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners applied for toddy shop licences, producing Exts. P1 and P7 in the case of the petitioner in O.P. No. 12536/02 and Exts. P1 and P2 in the case of petitioner in O.P. No. 12878/02 respectively, for shop No. 37 of Chittoor range and shop No. 54 of Palakkad range. Licences were provisionally granted in their favour, subject to confirmation by the Commissioner. That provisional grant was based on the preference available to the petitioners in terms of Rule 5(2) of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. This is an admitted fact by the petitioner. Rule 5(2) reads as follows :

(2.) It was found out by the Assistant Excise Commissioner who made provisional grant that the petitioners had conducted more than three shops in the year 1996-97. Therefore, a show cause notice Ext. P2 was issued. They submitted reply. Anyhow, provisional grant was made subject to confirmation by the Excise Commissioner. Now the Excise Commissioner has declined confirmation as per Ext. P6 in O.P. No. 12536/02 and Ext. P2 in O.P. No. 12878/02. This is a common order in both the cases. It is under challenge in these original petitions.

(3.) The petitioners submit that the confirmation is declined on the ground that they suppressed the fact of conducting more than 3 shops in the year 1996-97, when credentials were filed along with the application for grant of licence. They submit that the certificate Ext. P1 given by the Excise Authorities is for the year 1999-2000 in O.P. No. 12536/02 and for the year 1997-98 in O.P. No. 12878/02. The respondents did not have a case that either of them had conducted more than three shops in the said years, as the case may be. Therefore, there is no suppression by them. Ext. P7 certificate issued by the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board marked in O.P. No. 12536/02 clearly showed that the petitioner in that O.P. had conducted more than 3 shops between the period 1996-2001. So also, Ext. P2 certificate from the Welfare Fund Board produced by the petitioner in O.P. No. 12878/02 discloses the same situation for the year 1997-98. The respondents do not have a case before me that Ext. P7 and P2 referred to above had not been produced by the respective petitioners along with the application for grant of licence.