Statutory preference under abkari disposal rules may survive a stayed crime registration, and the administrative order was upheld.

Preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 is ordinarily unavailable where an abkari crime is registered against a former licensee, but that disqualification may be treated as inoperative when the criminal proceedings and consequential licence action are under an operative judicial stay. On the facts discussed, the earlier cancellation of licence remained in abeyance and the licensee was allowed to continue till the end of the term, so statutory preference could not be denied solely on the crime registration. The administrative order granting preference and cancelling the rival provisional allotment was also not vitiated by non-application of mind, as the relevant objections were considered on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the former licensee retained preferential right under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 despite registration of an abkari crime against him and the subsistence of an interim stay against further proceedings. (ii) Whether the order granting preference and cancelling the appellant's provisional allotment was vitiated by non-application of mind or by being a mere reproduction of the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether the former licensee retained preferential right under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 despite registration of an abkari crime against him and the subsistence of an interim stay against further proceedings.

Analysis: Preference under the Rule is ordinarily excluded where an abkari case is registered against the former licensee other than under Section 56 of the Abkari Act. However, the registration of the crime had itself been challenged in criminal proceedings and all further proceedings pursuant to that crime, including suspension or cancellation of licence, had been stayed by the Court. Since the cancellation of the earlier licence stood in abeyance and the former licensee was permitted to continue till the end of the licence period, the disqualification could not be treated as operating so as to deny the statutory preference.

Conclusion: The former licensee was entitled to preference under Rule 5(1)(a), and the appellant could not claim exclusion of that preference solely on the basis of the pending crime registration.

Issue (ii): Whether the order granting preference and cancelling the appellant's provisional allotment was vitiated by non-application of mind or by being a mere reproduction of the earlier order.

Analysis: The matter had been remitted for fresh consideration after the earlier order was set aside. On reconsideration, the authority dealt with the rival contentions and took a decision in favour of the former licensee. The order was administrative in character and was not required to resemble a judicial pronouncement with elaborate reasoning. The record showed that the relevant objections had been substantially addressed, and the earlier criticism of the order as a verbatim reproduction was not made out.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not vitiated by non-application of mind, and the grant of preference was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation of the appellant's provisional allotment failed, and the judgment sustaining the administrative decision was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the disqualification for preferential allotment is based only on a crime registration that is under an operative judicial stay, the authority may treat the disqualification as inoperative for the purpose of granting preference under the applicable disposal rules.

---