IMPORTANT POINTS
The SRO did not state anything regarding amendment to Rule 5(1)(b), the aforesaid proviso to Rule 5(1)(b) prescribing the maximum age limit of 80 years cannot be taken as omitted as per SRO No.522/2012-The statute provides the minimum and maximum age limit for grant of privilege of vending toddy and going by the statute, 18 and 80 respectively still remain as the minimum and maximum age limit as regards eligibility for the purchase of toddy shop. Thus, it is evident that for the purpose of determining the question whether a person who turn up for participating for the sale of privilege of vending toddy has crossed the age of 18 years or 80 years, the age as on the date of sale is relevant. The age as on the date of sale for the aforesaid purpose could not be reckoned without knowing the date of birth.

JUDGMENT :

Ravikumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No.29880 of 2019. The appellant who was the petitioner therein filed the said writ petition on being aggrieved by the decision of the second respondent whereby he was not permitted to participate in the re-sale of toddy shop in Group No.XII of Cherthala Excise Range, held on 4.11.2019. The reason therefore was that he had failed to fill the relevant column marked for entering the age and date of birth in Form I, appended to the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for brevity 'the Rules'), in terms of Rule 5(4) of the Rules. Form No.I is an identity card to be brought by the intending purchaser for participating in the sale of toddy shop duly attested by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Village Officer of the area where he/she permanently resides. The party respondents and the official respondents filed separate counter affidavits in the writ petition resisting the claims and contentions of the appellant. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and ultimately held that the rule making authority specified the form appended to the rules in a particular manner and essentially, it is so prescribed with a precise purpose. Thus, after taking into account the very purpose of prescription of such a form and also the requirement to produce documents in Form No.II, the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the appellant herein is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Evidently, the learned Single Judge held that this Court could not substitute the wisdom of authority to hold that the authority should also accept defective applications in the matter of privilege of vending toddy. Holding so, the writ petition was dismissed. This appeal has been preferred in the said circumstances.

2. Heard Sri. N. Raghuraj, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. M.K. Pradeepkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. As a matter of fact, the parties have reiterated their contentions raised before the writ court. The nub of the contentions of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge had erred in finding that non-filling of the relevant column showing the age and date of birth in Form No.I appended to the rules is a material defect. According to the appellant, it ought not have been treated as a material defect as the other materials on record were sufficient to establish that the appellant had crossed the age limit of 18 years and therefore, entitled to participate in the re-sale auction. The contention is that the provisions under Rule 5(3)(vi) of the Rules is only to ensure that the participant seeking grant of privilege of vending toddy is ineligible to participate in the re-sale owing to his being below the age of 18 years, in other words, to ensure that he is a person above 18 years. According to him, when that fact is established from the materials on record it was absolutely unnecessary to adopt a hair splitting approach to find out the age and date of birth in the aforesaid matter.

4. Per contra, the official and party respondents contended that the prescription of filling up of all columns in Form No.I which is appended to the Rules cannot be said to be a mere or empty formality and in fact, the prescription insisted is with a purpose, as held by the learned Single Judge. True that, a person who crossed the age of 18 would be permitted to enter the hall to participate in the resale to grant the privilege of vending toddy.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that besides satisfaction of prescribed prescription of minimum age, one should also satisfy the maximum age limit prescribed statutorily, to earn eligibility to participate in the grant of privilege of vending toddy, under fourth proviso to Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules. On our careful perusal of the provisions under Rule 5 of the 'Rules', we find