RAMANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Appeals are filed against a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in four Writ Petitions declining to grant the interim relief that was sought for by the petitioners. The appellants are licensees of toddy shops. Their licences have been suspended by the second respondent for the reason that the samples of toddy taken from the shops conducted by them have been found, on Chemical Analysis, to contain either starch or ethyl alcohol in excess of the permissible limit. On the basis of the Chemical Analysis Report, their licences have been suspended. The common contention of both the appellants is that, as per orders on applications submitted by them to the respective Magistrate's Courts, the 'B' Sample taken from their toddy shops have been sent for chemical analysis to a different laboratory since they dispute the correctness of the first report. Therefore, the suspension of their licences should await the report of the second sample.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and are briefly summarized as under: - -

(3.) The appellant in W.A. No. 2717 of 2015 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 36287 of 2015. He is the licensee of all toddy shops in Group No. V of Karthikappilly Excise Range in Alappuzha Division. The Excise party inspected toddy shop No. 26, conducted by him and took sample of toddy from the said shop. Upon chemical analysis, it was found that the sample contained 8.23% v/v. of Ethyl Alcohol, which is in excess of the permissible limit of 8.1% v/v. Therefore, crime No. 172 of 2015 of Karthikappilly Excise Range was registered against him alleging offences punishable under Sec. 56(b) and Sec. 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The appellant thereupon approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -1, Harippad and sought for a chemical analysis of the second sample that was produced in Court. Accordingly, the same has been sent for chemical analysis. The report is awaited. While so, the second respondent passed an order suspending the licence of the appellant in respect of the toddy shops of Group No. V of Karthikappally Range and directed him to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. A copy of the said order has been produced as exhibit P3 in the Writ Petition, which was under challenge therein. The appellant had also sought for a stay of exhibit P3 order and a direction to permit him to conduct the toddy shops till the report of the chemical analysis of the second sample was obtained. However, the learned Single Judge has declined the interim order, against which the appellant has filed this Writ Appeal.