Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

INTRODUCTION:

1. The issue in this writ petition concerns itself with whether registering of a crime is a since qua non either to suspend or cancel an abkari licence. The question of law that throws itself open in this process is whether Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 ('the Rules' for brevity) is repugnant to Section 41A of the principal enactment i.e., the Abkari Act, ('the Act' for brevity) as has been contended by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. The facts to the extent relevant for the discussion are that the petitioner is a licencee of toddy shops in Group No. VI of Karthikappally Excise Range for the year 2014-2017. On 19.12.2014, the excise party (special squad) conducted an inspection in toddy shop No. 30 belonging to the petitioner. Though nothing incriminating was found in the shop itself, in the jeep parked within the precincts of the shop were found considerable quantity of spirit and also sugar solution, apart from spirit mixed with sugar solution. It is not in dispute that the jeep had the necessary permit for transporting the toddy to the shop in question, though the very jeep was not owned by the petitioner. Under those circumstances, CR No. 154 of 2014 of Karthikappally Excise Range, Harippad Circle, was registered against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under Sections 55(a), 55D, 58 and 67B of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity).

3. Pursuant to the registration of the crime in the manner indicated above, the first respondent issued Ext. P3 order suspending with immediate effect the licence of the petitioner, apart from directing the petitioner to show cause within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order why the privilege and licence of Group No. VI/14-15 of Karthikappally Range should not be cancelled under Section 26(b) of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity), read with Rules 5(19), 7(5), 7(31) and 9(2) of the Rules. Having submitted Ext. P4 explanation, the petitioner filed the writ petition essentially contending that the suspension of licence is premature as it is said to be in violation of Rule 8(3) of the Rules.

Rival Contentions:

a. Petitioner's:

4. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that Rule 8(3) of the Rules mandates that no crime can be registered unless a report of the chemical analysis is received by the authorities. According to the learned counsel, any registration of crime, and for that matter, all consequential steps in the wake of registration of a crime in the absence of the report of chemical analysis made available to the authorities, cannot be sustained. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Ext. P5, an interim order given by this Court in another case, more or less, under similar circumstances.

b. Respondents':

5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Initially adverting to the facts of the matter, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the presence of the jeep and the auto rickshaw parked within the precincts of shop No. 30 licensed to the petitioner leaves no manner of doubt in the mind of any person that those vehicles are inextricably connected with the business of the petitioner. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that both the jeep, which has got the necessary permit to transport toddy to the shop in question, and the auto rickshaw, which was found parked along with the jeep, have contained the prohibited substances, i.e., spirit and sugar syrup both separately and also mixed in huge quantities.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader has contended that the p