USHA CHANDRABOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is apparently licensee of toddy shop Nos.9,11,16,17 and 31 in Group No.III of Varapuzha Range issued as per an order dated 14.3.2014 of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, due to the influence of the previous licensees and building owners, no other buildings are offered in the locality for running toddy shops. Even though petitioner paid necessary fees required for conducting toddy shops, evident from Ext.P1 and P1(a) receipts and Ext.P2 series of challan receipts, petitioner could not locate the building in order to carry on with the licence. Even though licence was confirmed in the name of the petitioner, petitioner did not execute any agreement and thereupon, Ext.P3 order dated 5.4.2017 is passed, wherein it is apprised that, even though petitioner has secured licence, petitioner has not taken any steps to conduct the toddy shop. It is thus challenging Ext.P3 and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, re-sale of the shops in question is confirmed in the name of the petitioner. However, even though respondents served written intimation to the petitioner regarding confirmation of the sale of privilege on 15.3.2017, the grantee of privilege failed to obtain building to run the toddy shops and not submitted any application for licensing the toddy shops included in Group No.III of Varapuzha range. It is also stated that, petitioner failed to execute any agreement in Form-III as per rule 5(16) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2007 within the stipulated time. Therefore, petitioner is not a licensee as is claimed in the writ petition. Since the petitioner failed to take further action consequent to the grant of privilege, Ext.P3 notice dated 5.4.2017 was issued requesting the petitioner to do the necessary in order to carry on with the licence.

(3.) A written reply was submitted by the licensee stating that, no buildings are available for carry on with the grant. Any how it is stated that, on 15.9.2017 re-sale was conducted and one P.P.Suresh Babu is awarded with the contract and therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition have really become infructuous.