1. The petitioners in all these cases who were engaged in retail sale of toddy are challenging separate orders issued by the Commissioner of Excise cancelling their licences. The reason for cancellation of licenses is the seizure of arrack/spirit from the toddy shop, or from the compound of the toddy shop or from nearby area, and consequent registration of crime against the petitioners as licensees and against their employees. Though the orders under challenge are different, the findings are more or less the same and the reason for cancellation also being the same, the Writ Petitions are heard together, and I proceed to dispose of the same under this common judgment. I heard counsel for the petitioners appearing in all the cases and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. Even though the reason for cancellation of license is seizure of arrack or spirit and consequent registration of crime against the petitioners who are licensees, alongwith their employees, there is some difference on facts particularly with regard to the quantity of contraband article seized, the place of seizure and the persons from whom seized. While in W.P.C.31844 of 2003, the quantity of spirit seized is 58 litres from a place not far away from the toddy shop, in W.P.C.31570, the item seized is 15 litres of arrack from a place not far away from the toddy shop. In the case of W.P.C.32513/03, three litres of arrack was seized from the shop itself and in the case of W.P.C. 32045/03, three litres of arrack was seized from the compound of the toddy shop and in W.P.C.29463 of 2003, the item seized in 10 litres of arrack, 200 metres away from the toddy shop.

3. The Commissioner of Excise issued notices to the petitioners/ licensees and called for their objections, heard them and cancelled the licences in exercise of his powers conferred under S.26(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act read with R.7(5) and R.7(31) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. The orders are issued based on the prima facie case established in the form of registration of crime against the petitioners/ licensees before the Magistrate Court for offences punishable under Ss.8(1) and 8(2) read with S.55(a) of the Abkari Act.

4. The petitioners have denied the transactions and according to them unless the seizure of contraband item is from the licensee, the licences cannot be cancelled or suspended. Though in some cases, the seizure is from persons stated to be employees or acting for the petitioners/ licensees the petitioners have denied the same. There is also another argument that even if the employee is engaged in sale of contraband item, namely, arrack or spirit, the same should not be a ground for cancellation of licence of the petitioners unless it is established that such business is carried on behalf of the petitioners or at least with the knowledge of the petitioners. Relying on the decisions of the this Court in Vijayan v. Excise Commissioner ((2002) 3 KLT 646) and Jose v. Asst. Excise Commissioner ((1991) 2 KLT 800) the petitioners contended that mere filing of FIR was not a ground to establish the "charge" against them and so much so, the cancellation of licences is absolutely unjustified. According to them, under S.26(c) of the Abkari Act, licence can be cancelled only if the person is convicted for the abkari offence and not merely on the basis of registration of a crime.

5. The Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the conviction by the Judicial Magistrate is different from cancellation of license and S.26(a) to (d) other than sub-cl.(c) of S.26 the provisions of which authorise suspension or cancellation of licence for reasons other than conviction in a criminal case.

6. I do not think the argument of the petitioners that conviction in a criminal case is a necessary precondition for suspension or cancellation of license can be accepted. I have already considered the matter in detail in W.P.C. No.29182 of 2003 that licence can be suspended or c