IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that amendments to licensing rules can validly differentiate between licensees based on their operational history and compliance with legal standards, provided such differentiation serves a legitimate purpose and does not violate constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) :

[WP(C) Nos.31910/2023, 849/2024, 8578/2022]

Heard Mr Sudhi Vasudevan (Senior), assisted by Ms Shilpa Sathish and Mr C A Joseph, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Sreejith V.S. learned Government Pleader, Mr M G Karthikeyan learned Counsel for the 6th respondent and Mr P N Santhosh for the 3rd respondent.

2. The petitioners have filed these two writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos.31910/2023 and 849/2024, in respect of toddy shop nos. 10, 14, 15, 37 and 38 of Group IV of Mannarkkad Range for the Abkari Year 2019-20 and toddy shop nos. 19, 20, 21, 29 and 34 in Group VI of Mannarkkad Range. W.P.(C) No.8578/2022 is in respect of toddy shop nos. 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 of Group III in Vadakara Range for the Abkari year 2019-20.

2.1 Since the common question of facts and law are involved in these three petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment. The facts are briefly noted hereunder:

Facts:

W.P.(C) No.8578/2022

3. The petitioner was the licensee of the toddy shops bearing T S nos. 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 of Group No. III in Vadakara Range for the Abkari Year 2017-18. The license for the aforesaid toddy shops was up to 31.03.2018. Crime Nos.181/2017 and 182/2017 of Vadakara Excise Range were registered against the petitioner and the salesman under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act by the Excise Inspector on the allegation that the sample of toddy taken by the Assistant Excise Inspector on 15.04.2017 from the toddy kept in the said toddy shop no 15/16-17 of Vadakara Excise Range and toddy shop no.25/16-17 on chemical analysis were found to contain starch. The Chemical Analysis report dated 13.07.2017 was issued by the Regional Chemical Examiner, Chemical Examination Laboratory, Kozhikode.

3.1 The 1st respondent cancelled the toddy licenses issued to the petitioner for the toddy shops 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 of Group No. III in Vadakara Range by order dated 01.01.2018, stating that the alleged detection of starch in toddy shop No.15/16-17 and toddy shop No. 25/16-17 of Vadakara Range is a serious offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

3.2 The petitioner along with his salesman submitted applications for compounding of the aforesaid offence bearing Crime Nos.181/2017 and 182/2017 of Vadakara Excise Range in view of the amendment brought to Section 67A of the Abkari Act with effect from 21.12.2017 by Abkari Amendment Act 2018 [Act 25 of 2018] conferring power upon the Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to compound the offence of mixing starch with liquor on payment of Rs.25,000/-. However, the aforesaid applications were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise vide order dated 20.02.2018 on the ground that the said amendment had no retrospective effect and the date of commission of the offence was prior to the date of the said amendment.

3.3 The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise on 20.02.2018 rejecting the compounding application of the petitioner and salesman was challenged in W.P.(C) No.3969/2018. An interim order was granted on 07.02.2018 in the writ petition staying the resale of toddy shops referred to above for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, the said interim order was extended on various occasions and the order was extended until further orders on 24.07.2018. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 25.10.2018.

4. In compliance with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.3969/2018, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise vide order dated 11.12.2018 compounded the offence in question against the petitioner under Section 57(aa) of the Abkari Act on payment of Rs.25,000/- each as compounding fee in Crime Nos.181/2017 and 182/2017.

4.1 Writ Appeals were preferred by the respondents against the judgment dated 25.10.2018 in W.A. No.2451/2018. As an interim order was not issued by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, the Judicial First-Clas