GOPI Vs. SHAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a permanent resident within the Nelliyampathy Panchayat area. The area of his residence falls within the jurisdiction of the Nenmara Range of the Excise Department. The main dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the location of two toddy shops.

(2.) The substantial relief sought by the petitioner in the course of the hearing is to set aside Ext. R1(b) proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram dated 27-4-1994. By Ext. R1(b) the Board of Revenue has accorded sanction to the licensee to transfer the Toddy Shop Nos. 196 and 198/94-95 of Nenmara Range from existing buildings to Door Nos.111/255 and VI/36 of Nelliyampathy Panchayat. The licensee is the 1st respondent in the Original Petition and he has filed Ext. R1(a) representation earlier before the Excise Commissioner requesting to transfer the shops which he had obtained in auction held in March 1994. The complaint of the petitioner is that the alternate building to which the shops were transferred are not in existence. After the transfer, the licensee has constructed two temporary sheds to sell toddy and what is going on there is illicit liquor trade. Pursuant to Ext. R1(b), the 1st respondent had obtained permit to transport the toddy to the alternate shop. It is further argued that when auction notice has prescribed the jurisdiction of each shops, the Board of Revenue has no authority to transfer the shop from one place to another. The 1st respondent has filed Ext. P1 representation only before the Excise Commissioner and not before Board of Revenue. It is pointed out that the locality in which the new shops are permitted to be located is an area where Adivasis and Plantation Labourers reside. It also contended that the establishment of new shops at the alternate buildings is at any rate opposed to the provisions contained in the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').

(3.) Sri. C. S. Anantha Krishna Iyer, Senior Advocate has pointed out that under Sub-rule (2) of R.6 no toddy shops shall be located outside the limits notified under R.4, but with the previous sanction of Assistant Excise Commissioner it may be removed from one place to another within such limits. However, it is an admitted case that Ext. R1(b) challenged in this case has been passed by the Board of Revenue. It is difficult to argue that the Board of Revenue has no power to pass the order like Ext. R1 (b) and Sub-rule (3) of R.6 amply confers power on the Board to pass such orders. The Board of Revenue has granted Ext R1 (b) permit in exercise of powers under the Rules.