TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision for the year 2013-14. On 11.7.2013, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulinkunnu Police Station, inspected one of the shops (T.S.No:76) of which the fourth respondent was the licensee. He found two persons, alleged to be the Manager and the salesman, selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the store room. The said persons were arrested, 8 bottles of brandy and one bottle of rum were seized and Crime No: 472/2013 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police against the said persons and the fourth respondent. The offences alleged against them were under Sections 55(a) &(i) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the first respondent suspended the fourth respondent's license. Thereupon, the fourth respondent approached this Court, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Crl.M.C.3269/2013. The Crl.M.C was admitted by this Court and by Ext.P9 interim order dated 26.8.2013, the investigation in Crime No:472/2013 of Pulinkunnu Police Station was stayed. The interim order of stay is still in force. 2. Against suspension of his license, the fourth respondent filed WPC 20255/2013 before this Court. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment." 4. Accordingly the first respondent heard the matter, considered the contentions advanced and by Ext.P4 order cancelled the provisional allotment made in favour of the appellant herein, holding that the fourth respondent was entitled to a preferential right. Ext.P4 was the subject matter of challenge in WPC 14191/2014. As per Ext.P5 judgment dated 9.3.2015, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court set aside the order of the first respondent and directed the said authority to take a fresh decision in the matter. The appellant as well as the fourth respondent were set at liberty to take up all their contentions before the said authority. It was accordingly that the first respondent has considered the matter and passed Ext.P8 order. As per Ext.P8 order the first respondent has again cancelled the provisional allotment made in favour of the appellant and has held that the fourth respondent was entitled to preferential right in the matter of allotment of the privilege of conducting the toddy shops. It was the said order that was unsuccessfully challenged before the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore contended that, the learned Single Judge went wrong in sustaining the impugned order and dismissing the writ petition. 6. The contentions of the counsel for the appellant are opposed by Adv.M.G.Karthikeyan who appears for the fourth respondent. According to the learned counsel, the persons who were found selling the IMFL that was allegedly seized, were not employees of the fourth respondent. None of his employees were involved in the incident. The fourth respondent was made an accused only for the reason that he was the licensee of the Toddy Shop. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the fourth respondent cannot be found fault with, on any count. For the above reason, the registration of the crime as well as the allegation that the provisions of Section 55(a) & (i) were attracted is also without any basis, it is contended. For the above reason it is pointed out that the registration of the crime itself was unsustainable. It was appreciating the said contention, this Court has admitted the Crl.M.C seeking to quash the same and granted an interim order against any further action on the basis thereof. Accordingly, cancellation or revocation of the license issued to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der has been found to be justified by the learned Single Judge also. According to the learned Govt. Pleader there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. Though the matter is posted before us for admission, since all the parties were represented through counsel we have heard the respective counsel, at length. We have also considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously. We notice that the facts are not in dispute. It is admitted that, a substantial quantity of IMFL was seized from the toddy shop conducted by the fourth respondent. Crime No:472/2013 was registered in respect of the incident by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulimkunnu. However, all further proceedings pursuant to registration of the said crime has been stayed by this Court as per Ext.P2 interim order in Crl.M.C.3269/2013. The interim order is still in force. In the above circumstances, whether the fourth respondent is entitled to claim privilege in the matter of grant of license to conduct the toddy shops during the abkari year commencing from 1.4.2014 is the disputed question. It is an admitted fact that, without extending preference to the fourth respondent, a regular auction of the shops was conduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d respondents, the court passed the following Interim stay as prayed for." As per the above interim order, all further proceedings pursuant to registration of the crime have been stayed. It is admitted that the said order is still in force. The consequence of the above order is that, all further proceedings against the fourth respondent have been brought to a standstill. The only grounds on which the license in favour of the fourth respondent was cancelled was the registration of the crime. Since the investigation itself was stayed, the fourth respondent was permitted to conduct the toddy shops up to the end of his license period. Having permitted the fourth respondent to conduct his toddy shops up to the end of his license period, there was no justification for having denied to him the benefit of the preference contained in Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules. It is the said infirmity that has been set right by Ext.P8. 11. In the above context, we notice that the fourth respondent had challenged the auction that was conducted in WPC 6380/2014 before this Court. The appellant herein had got himself impleaded in the said writ petition. He had put forward his contentions in the ....