9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Rules ). The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: THE respondent is the licensee of the toddy shops in Group 1 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range. Samples of toddy taken from T. S.No. 1 under the said Range on 3.5.2007 was found to contain 8.83% volume by volume of ethyl alcohol. THE sale of toddy containing that much volume of ethyl alcohol was a violation of R.9(2) of the Rules. THE said conduct of the licensee disclosed offences under Ss.57(a) and 56(b) of the Act and so, Crime No.34/2007 was registered against the respondent for the said offences. THE respondent challenged the rules concerning the strength of permissible ethyl alcohol in coconut toddy and also the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34/20Q7 registered by the Excise Range, Thiruvananthapurum. THE following interim relief was also sought: For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum of Writ Petition and affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the . respondents to give preferential right to petitioner for the allotment of the toddy shops in Group No.1 in Thiruvananthapuram excise range for the abkari year 2010-201 I without taking into account the registration of C.R.No.34/2007 registered by the Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Going by the above prayers, it is clear that the respondent was mainly concerned with apprehended denial of pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untenable because of Ext.Pl stay order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is Finally contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge relying on Ext.P2 is a plausible view on the facts that the disqualification under R.5(1)(a) will not apply to the respondent for the reason of registration of a crime, as further proceedings in that case have been stayed by the Apex Court. THE learned senior counsel also pointed out that if, ultimately, the S.L.P. is allowed, the loss sustained by the respondent during the interregnum will be irreparable and therefore, balance of convenience demands that the respondent should be permitted to run the toddy shop pending decision by the Apex Court. We considered the contentions raised by b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under S.56 of the Abkari Act. The licences who have conducted the shops during the year 2009-10 and whose licences cancelled due to registration of Abkari cases and subsequently exonerated by the Court and those licences who could not complete the year 2009-10 on account of the closure of shops shall also be given preference: Provided that shops which functioned till 2006-07 and which are sought to be relocated within 50 metres radius of the previous site for carrying out repair to the building etc., shall be deemed as functional during 2009-10. The opening words of R.5(1)(a) would show that a person who has run shops during the previous years is entitled to preference, if no abkari case is registered against him for any offence oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
