Preferential right for former licensee under Abkari shop rules upheld despite auction participation and prior objection.

The Kerala HC note states that where a former licensee's licence cancellation and related proceedings had been stayed in collateral proceedings, the authority could treat him as falling within the preferential category under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. It also records that the fresh order was not a verbatim reproduction of the earlier order and that the administrative authority had substantially addressed the objections raised. The fact that the claimant had participated in the auction from the general category did not bar reliance on the preference claim, as the challenge to denial of preference had been pursued promptly. The cancellation of the provisional allotment in favour of the appellant was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to interfere with the order cancelling his provisional allotment and granting preferential right to the former licensee under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The former licensee's licence cancellation and the proceedings founded on the registered crime had been stayed in collateral proceedings, and the consequence was that the earlier action against him had been brought to a standstill. In that setting, the authority was entitled to treat the former licensee as falling within the preferential category under Rule 5(1)(a). The Court also held that the fresh order was not a mere verbatim reproduction of the earlier order and that the administrative authority had substantially dealt with the objections. The further contention that participation in the auction from the general category barred the claim to preference was rejected, since the challenge to denial of preference had been pursued promptly and had been considered in earlier proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellant had no valid ground to upset the grant of preferential right to the former licensee, and the cancellation of the provisional allotment made in his favour was upheld.

---