Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for decision in this batch of cases is the validity of the amendment to Rule 2(n) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), introduced as per S.R.O.No.144/2007 dated 12.2007, published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.2007 and also the notification issued by the Government as S.R.O. No. 145/2007 dated 12.2007, fixing the strength of ethyl alcohol in different types of toddy and specifying other incidental matters.

W.A.No.2867/2007:

2. The Writ Appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the exhibits. This appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P. (C) No.24408/2007.

3. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was the licensee of Toddy Shop No.1 in Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range for the abkari year 2007-08. He is the accused in Crime No.34/2007, registered by the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram, the 4th respondent herein. A sample of the toddy, sold from Toddy Shop No.1, was taken by the Excise officials on 5.2007. On chemical analysis, it was found that the sample contained 8.83% volume of ethyl alcohol. A photo copy of the chemical analysis report dated 26.2007 is Ext.P2. Based on the said report, Ext.P1 crime has been registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 57 (a) of the Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Prosecution is launched against him, mainly, relying on a recent amendment brought to Rule 2(n) of the Rules. A photo copy of the notification containing the said amendment is Ext.P3. On the strength of Ext.P3 amendment, the Government have issued a further notification, prescribing the maximum strength of ethyl alcohol as 8.1%, permissible in coconut toddy. A photo copy of that notification is Ext.P4. The appellant challenged Ext.P1 as also Exts.P3 and P4 in the Writ Petition. The appellant contended that the excess alcohol content found in the toddy is not a foreign ingredient, but a natural ingredient of toddy and therefore, the offence under Section 57(a) of the Act is not made out. Further, the percentage of maximum alcohol permissible in coconut toddy has been fixed without any scientific study or basis, in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in Unni V. State of Kerala [2003(3) KLT 306], State of Kerala v. Unni [2005(1) KLT 714] and also the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Unni [2007(1) KLT 151 (SC), Exts.P3 and P4 are invalid and the prosecution launched against him was liable to be quashed.

4. The respondents resisted the prayers in the Writ Petition, contending that the strength of the maximum permissible limit of ethyl alcohol in different types of toddy was fixed, relying on the standards fixed by the Indian Standards Institution. The said body is an expert agency and it has fixed the percentage after meticulous scientific study. The Government only followed the said prescription made by the Indian Standards Institution. The said prescription and also the covering letter of the Chief Chemical Examiner to the Government, mentioning about the alcohol content fixed by the Indian Standards Institution in toddy, were produced before the learned Single Judge along with a memo.

5. The learned Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.

6. We heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. C.C. Thomas and also the learned counsel M/s. Dr. K.P. Satheesan, B. Krishnamani, S. Sreekumar, M.G. Karthikeyan, G. Krishnakumar, Joice George, B. Mohanlal, Renjith B. Marar, V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, S. Sanal Kumar, Liji J. Vadakkedom & G. Sukumara Menon, appearing in the connected Writ Petitions. We also heard Mr. Renjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General and also Mr. M.R. Sabu, learned Government Pleader.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant took us through the relevant provisions of the Statue, Exts.P3