2014 (4) TMI 194 - HC - Indian Laws

Applications for purchasing the privilege for vending toddy - Applicants filed joint application for doing joint business - 5th Respondent without informing other filed separate application for the same - Applicants request for offered production of Demand Draft or payment of the requisite amount made by 5th Respondent - Applicant contends that offers made as per Ext.P3 were not taken into consideration and at the same time the first respondent allotted the said shops in Group No.XI in Thodupuzha Excise Range in favour of the 5th respondent and provisionally confirmed the same - Held that - petitioners have requested time for complying with the conditions and also for producing the Demand Draft towards the amount payable, in accordance with law, for purchasing privilege for vending the shops in question for which they claim to be the joint licencees and also offered to pay the requisite amount in cash on the date of auction itself. As noticed hereinbefore, they attribute fraud on the part of the 5th respondent. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the sale of the shops in question in favour of the 5th respondent was subsequently confirmed finally as he had submitted a valid application and also had complied with all the conditions for purchasing the privilege in tune with the provisions under Rule 5(1) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. This Court will not justified in interfering with the proceedings at this stage especially taking note of the fact that Ext.P5 representation is pending before the 2nd respondent. It is to be noted that, admittedly, the sale of toddy shops in Group-XI of Thodupuzha Excise Range has now been finally confirmed in favour of the 5th respondent - Matter remanded for consideration - Decided partly in favour of applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over joint license for toddy shops
2. Allegation of fraud by one party
3. Failure of authorities to act on representations

Analysis:
The petitioners and the 5th respondent were joint licensees for toddy shops but had a dispute over purchasing the vending privilege jointly for the upcoming year. The petitioners accused the 5th respondent of fraud for separately applying without informing them. Despite representations, the first respondent confirmed the sale in favor of the 5th respondent. The petitioners sought intervention, alleging fraud on the part of the 5th respondent.

The court noted that the sale was confirmed in favor of the 5th respondent, who had complied with all conditions for purchasing the privilege as per the rules. The petitioners requested time to fulfill conditions and offered to pay in cash on the auction day. The court decided not to interfere, considering the pending representation before the 2nd respondent. The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners' objection and make a decision within three weeks. The sale to the 5th respondent was made subject to the outcome of the decision on the objection, ensuring fairness in the process.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition without commenting on the merits of the petitioners' contentions. The decision highlighted the importance of due process and fair consideration of objections in matters of licensing and allotment. The judgment aimed to ensure a transparent and lawful resolution of the dispute over the toddy shop vending privilege.