Court affirms preference to fourth respondent under Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules

The court upheld the decision to grant preference to the fourth respondent under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, dismissing the appeal and affirming the learned Single Judge's ruling. The appellant's challenge to the cancellation of provisional allotment of toddy shops and contentions regarding the registration of a crime against the fourth respondent were not accepted, with the court finding no basis to interfere with the judgment and orders in favor of the fourth respondent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of provisional allotment of toddy shops.
2. Preferential right under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002.
3. Registration of Crime No:72/2013 under Section 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act.
4. Validity of Ext.P7 and Ext.P10 orders.
5. Interim order in Crl.M.C.4299/13 and its implications.
6. Contentions regarding non-participation in the auction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of provisional allotment of toddy shops:
The appellant participated in an auction for toddy shops and emerged as the highest bidder, resulting in a provisional allotment. However, this allotment was later canceled by the first respondent. The appellant challenged this cancellation in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Preferential right under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002:
The fourth respondent, the previous licensee, claimed a preferential right to the toddy shops under Rule 5(1)(a) despite the registration of Crime No:72/2013 against him. The appellant argued that the registration of the crime disqualified the fourth respondent from claiming this preference. However, the fourth respondent contended that the seized toddy was genuine but unfit for consumption and that the registration of the crime was unsustainable.

3. Registration of Crime No:72/2013 under Section 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act:
A substantial quantity of toddy unfit for human consumption was seized from the fourth respondent's possession, leading to the registration of Crime No:72/2013. The fourth respondent challenged this registration in Crl.M.C.4299/13, and an interim order was issued staying all further proceedings, including suspension/cancellation of licenses.

4. Validity of Ext.P7 and Ext.P10 orders:
The first respondent initially issued Ext.P7, canceling the appellant's provisional allotment and granting preference to the fourth respondent. This order was challenged by the appellant and set aside by the court, directing a fresh consideration. The first respondent then issued Ext.P10, again granting preference to the fourth respondent. The appellant argued that Ext.P10 was a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P7 and lacked consideration of his contentions. However, the court found that Ext.P10 substantially addressed the issues and was not a mere reproduction of Ext.P7.

5. Interim order in Crl.M.C.4299/13 and its implications:
The interim order in Crl.M.C.4299/13 stayed all further proceedings related to the crime against the fourth respondent, including the cancellation of his license. This order effectively allowed the fourth respondent to continue operating the toddy shops until the end of his license period. The court held that this interim order justified the grant of preference to the fourth respondent under Rule 5(1)(a).

6. Contentions regarding non-participation in the auction:
The appellant argued that the fourth respondent did not request the grant of privilege or participate in the auction, disqualifying him from claiming preference post-auction. However, the court noted that the fourth respondent had promptly challenged the auction proceedings and obtained interim orders against confirmation. The court found this conduct sufficient to justify the fourth respondent's claim for preference.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the learned Single Judge's judgment and the first respondent's decision to grant preference to the fourth respondent under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders.

---