IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.T. Ravikumar, N.Nagaresh, JJ.
The Excise Commissioner Commissionerate of Excise and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
K. Sridharan, S/o. Kannan Nair and Ors. – Respondents
WA.No. 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456 OF 2018
Decided On : 10-02-2021
The Abkari Act, 1077- Section 26, Section 57(a) The abkari offence for mixing starch with liquor –Compounding-Reconsideration of the issue of cancellation of licence- Beneficial construction of an ex post facto law is applicable only in criminal proceedings and not in proceedings for deciding civil liability and further that all cases falling under Section 26(b) of the Abkari Act do not call for cancellation of licence and it has to be decided depending upon the nature of breach of the terms of the licence.
Statement of facts:
Crime and occurrence reports were registered against the respondents herein, prior to 21.12.2017, under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077- Pending proceedings, the licences and privileges were suspended by the Deputy Commissioner concerned. Later, in terms of the provisions under Section 26 of the Abkari Act, their licences were cancelled-Orders for resale of such shops were also issued-Approached the authorities for compounding the offences, the representations submitted therefor, were rejected-The respondents herein/writ petitioners to approach this Court by filing the above mentioned writ petitions.
Finding of the court:
If applications for compounding are preferred by the party respondents, the issue of cancellation of licences shall be taken up and decided in accordance with law, but bearing in mind that the beneficial construction of an ex post facto law is applicable only in criminal proceedings and not in proceedings for deciding civil liability and further that all cases falling under Section 26(b) of the Abkari Act do not call for cancellation of licence and it has to be decided depending upon the nature of breach of the terms of the licence.
Result:Appeals are allowed in part
JUDGMENT :
Ravikumar, J.
The captioned writ appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 25.10.2018 in W.P.(C)Nos.16509/2018, 3969/2018, 6308/2018, 4910/2018, 4811/2018 & 3326/2016. The State of Kerala and its officers who were respondents in the writ petitions are the appellants. The respondents herein/the writ petitioners were licensees/workers of toddy shops under different groups in different Excise Ranges. The licensees were permitted to vend toddy through the respective shops up to 31.3.2018. During the currency of their licences, samples of toddy were taken from their respective shops by the competent officers and on analysis, they were found to be adulterated with foreign materials and in the admixture presence of starch was found. Consequently, crime and occurrence reports were registered against the respondents herein, prior to 21.12.2017, under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077. Upon registration of abkari offences against them under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act, the respective licensees were issued with show cause notices as to why licences issued to them to vend toddy, should not be cancelled. Pending proceedings, the licences and privileges were suspended by the Deputy Commissioner concerned. Later, in terms of the provisions under Section 26 of the Abkari Act, their licences were cancelled. Still later, orders for resale of such shops were also issued. Though they approached the authorities for compounding the offences, the representations submitted therefor, were rejected. It is the said circumstances that constrained the respondents herein/writ petitioners to approach this Court by filing the above mentioned writ petitions.
2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions set aside the impugned orders of suspension/cancellation and disposed of the writ petitions as per common judgment 25.10.2018 with the following findings and directions:-
(Underline supplied)
It is feeling aggrieved by the setting aside of the orders of suspension/cancellation of the licences issued to the respondents herein/writ petitioners and the further consequential findings and directions that the captioned appeals are filed.
3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners.
4. Both sides were heard at length. From the rival contentions, various points germane for consideration. In view of the commonness of the issues as also the contentions, for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, it is absolutely unnecessary for us to take note of the factual aspects involved in the individual
Prahlad Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh
Hatisingh Mfg.Co.Ltd v. Union of India & others
Biswabahan Das v. Gopen Chandra Hazarika
Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India
T.Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and another
Banerji Memorial Club, Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Excise
Sohanlal v. State of Rajasthan
Mathew N.J v. State of Kerala and others
P.M.A Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma
State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.