1. The petitioner had been given the privilege to vend toddy at shops in Group No.III of Vadakara Range. When he had been carrying on the business with a renewed licence for the year 2014-2015, a crime No. 125 of 2014 of Vadakara Excise Range came to be registered against the petitioner under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

2. Apart from sample A getting tested positive, in course of time, sample B also tested to be positive. Under those circumstances, the first respondent issued Ext.P4 proceedings dated 23.07.2014 suspending the licence. Later, the same authority issued Ext.P5 proceedings dated 08.10.2014 cancelling the petitioner's licence for the abkari year 2014- 2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel has submitted that in the chemical analysis, it came to light that there was a very minimal quantity of starch found in the toddy collected as sample from the petitioner's shop. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that the substance 'starch', assuming it to have been found in the toddy, is not a noxious substance. He has further contended that since the purpose of adding starch is to increase the quantity or volume of toddy with a view to making pecuniary gain, 1.587 grams of starch per litre of the sample cannot be said, contends the learned counsel, to be any gross adulteration of the substance with a view to increasing the volume of toddy. He has drawn my attention to Ext.P3, the Chemical Analysis report in respect of Sample A, wherein the chemical examiner has observed that all the samples were found to be free from noxious ingredients injurious to health.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once it is held that the substance is not noxious and that it could have been added allegedly for the purpose of increasing the volume of the toddy, it is imperative that the authorities ought to have conducted a quantitative test to determine the extent of volume stood increased per litre by the alleged addition of starch.

5. In the alternative, the learned counsel, placing reliance on Gopidas v. Shibu Mathew, has strenuously contended that the samples were drawn on 22.12.2013 in one instance and later on 24.11.2013, in another instance, i.e., during the subsistence of licence for the abkari year 2013-2014. According to him, during that year, the licence was not interdicted. The present impugned proceedings were issued cancelling the licence of the subsequent year i.e., 2014-2015.

6. In sum and substance, the contention of the learned counsel is that under whatever circumstances and for whatever violation of any licence conditions, if the licence is to be either suspended or cancelled altogether, it shall be confined to the licensing year, when the transgression was found. In other words, in any subsequent year, for an alleged infraction of the 1 2004(1) KLT 570 licence conditions in the previous year, no cancellation can be inflicted.

7. The learned counsel has also submitted that since samples were taken on two occasions, though the result of sample B was made available in the first instance, concerning the second one, still the result is awaited. Under these circumstances, the first respondent, contends the learned counsel, ought not to have taken any precipitous steps affecting the petitioner's substantial right to business. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to set aside Exts. P4 and P5.

8. The learned Government Pleader has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. She has submitted that a crime was registered under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. As such, the petitioner has earned disqualification under Section 26(b) of the Act r/w Rules 519 and 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002.

9. In elaboration of her submissions, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that in terms of Section 26 (b) of the Act, in the event of any breach of conditions of li