JAYAKUMAR Vs. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 order of suspension dated 03.10.2017 issued by the 1st respondent, suspending the licence granted to the petitioner in respect of toddy shops Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Kayamkulam Range, as per Rule 7(23) and other allied provisions of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 [for short, Disposal Rules, 2002]. According to the petitioner, the findings rendered in Ext.P1 order of suspension pending enquiry are without any materials on record. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is issued with licences on 08.09.2016 to conduct the toddy shops specified above in Group No.I of Kayamkulam Excise Range. The privilege is extended for a further period of 3 months from 01.04.2017, and thereafter for 9 months ending on 31.03.2018, as per the policy of the State Government. Petitioner is presently issued with Ext.P1 impugned order of suspension, stating that the licences are being actually conducted by one Manoj in the name of the petitioner as binami and hence the licences are suspended, and further directed the petitioner to show cause why the licences are not cancelled and forfeit the deposit/annual rent. It is also submitted that the violation alleged is under Rule 7(23) and Rule 7(31) of the Disposal Rules, 2002, and Sec.26(b) of the Abkari Act. It is also contended that, there is no crime registered against the petitioner or there is no material or proof before the 1st respondent to establish that the said Manoj is actually conducting the shops. According to the petitioner, the only relation with Manjoj is that he is the petitioner's uncle's son and Manoj is involved in a spirit case. However, there is no business relationship by and between the petitioner and the said Manoj, and therefore, according to the petitioner, the suspension as per Ext.P1 cannot be sustained under law, and seeks intervention of this Court.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed statement justifying Ext.P1 order. Various aspects are dealt with in the statement. Along with the statement filed, the statements of the petitioner as well as the various employees of the toddy shops were taken and produced. In none of those statements, there is any prima facie evidence to show that the person Manoj alleged to be conducting the shops as per Ext.P1 is conducting the shops, as is alleged.