1. The petitioners, the licencees of toddy shops in Group No.1 of Kayamkulam Excise Range for the year 2014-2017, applied for renewal of the licence for the Abkari year 2015- 2016. According to the petitioners, though they have complied with Ext.P2 guidelines, the second respondent did not accept the fee on the ground that CR No. 106 of 2014 of Excise Range, Kayamkulam, was registered against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the privilege was granted for three years i.e., from 2014 - 2017, the lease is only annual, which means every year there is a requirement of applying for renewal, complying with certain statutory formalities. Elaborating on his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that when the petitioners applied for renewal for the year 2015-2016, the second respondent refused to accept the requisite fee on a specious plea that a crime has been registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to Ext.P1 order of this Court in Crl. M.C. No. 5190 of 2014 to stress that proceedings in Crime No. 506 of 2014 have already been stayed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Rules 5(1)(a) and (5)(3)(i) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules) and laid emphasis on the fact that mere registration of a crime is not a disqualification, since the Rule mandates that a person ought to have been charged with an offence relating to illicit liquor or that prosecution proceedings ought to be pending against the said person to treat it as a disqualification. In that regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Anilkumar v. State of Kerala (2013 (3) KLT 358), Vijayan v. Excise Commissioner (2002 (3) KLT 646) and P.P. Vineesh v. State of Kerala & others (an unreported judgment of this Court dated 19.03.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 7983 of 2008 and batch).

5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioners. She has submitted that the offence is related to possessing 25 litres of spirit and 60 litres of illicit toddy, which, according to the learned Government Pleader, is a grave offence. She has further submitted that given the gravity of offence, for all practical purposes, it shall be deemed that the petitioners stand charged, and that the proceedings are pending. Either on the first limb of charging an accused or on the second limb of the pendency of prosecution proceedings, the petitioners are disentitled to have their licences renewed. She has further submitted that the petitioners have so far not remitted the requisite advance toddy workers' welfare fund, as well as the other fees, which are the pre-conditions to consider the petitioners' application, if any.

6. The learned Government Pleader has also submitted that on more than one occasion, this Court has held that mere olfactory evidence is sufficient once a substance smells of arrack or spirit. In elaboration of her submissions, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that once there is no manner of doubt left as to the nature of substance, it is only hyper technical to insist that there ought to have been chemical analysis of the substance.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record.

8. Indeed, the issue lies in a narrow compass, inasmuch as mere registration of a crime does not earn a disqualification concerning the renewal of licence. Rule 5(3)(i) of the Rule is to the following effect:

“5. The Grant of privilege of vending Toddy shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(3) No applicant is eligible for the privilege of any group range if he:

(i) is charged with an offence relating to illicit liquor or prosecution proceedings are pending against such applicant before a co