RARICHAN GEORGE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The privilege to vend toddy in six shops forming Group-II of Kattappana Excise Range was bid by a group of individuals, namely, the petitioners and the fourth respondent. Ext. P3 licence was issued in their names. The fourth respondent was also one among those in another group of individuals to whom the privilege to vend toddy in Group-Ill of that range was licensed, following the auction. Crime Nos. 61/2007 and 62/2007 were registered against the fourth respondent for offences punishable under S.8(2) of the Abkari Act, 1077, hereinafter, referred to as, the 'Act', on the allegation of violation of S.8(1) in relation to two shops in Group-III. On the basis of that, the first respondent Commissioner of Excise has cancelled Ext. P3 licence, in relation to Group-II, as per the impugned Ext. P7.

(2.) In support of the writ petition, two alternate contentions are raised. The first is that the group of individuals, in terms of R.3(1) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, hereinafter, referred to as, the 'Rules', is a separate legal entity or a juristic person, and therefore, any violation of the law by the fourth respondent, in the course of his activity as a licensee in Group-Ill cannot attract the liability for cancellation of licence of Group-II, which is granted to the group of individuals consisting of the petitioners and the fourth respondent. Alternatively, it is contended that even if the group of individuals for the purpose of the said rule is only a collection of individuals without having the status of a juristic person, collectively, the disqualification incurred by one member, namely, the fourth respondent herein, cannot affect the right of the other members to hold the licence, since, in such a situation, each member has to be treated as a separate licence holder under the Rules.

(3.) A counter-affidavit is placed contending that the concept of 'group' in the Rules following their amendment, as per the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal (Amendment) Rules, 2007, is that, the groups are formed not for getting the privilege but are meant only for the disposal of the shops in groups and that the liability of all individuals in a group is joint, and such joint liability takes away the right of the petitioners also, in terms of R.5(3) and 5(4) of the Rules, to run the toddy shop in Group-II on the ground referable to commissions and omissions of the fourth respondent, in relation to Group-III.