The court confirmed that a compounded offence does not bar the petitioner from participating in future allotments.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, along with respondents 6 and 7, got the allotment of toddy shops in Group No. I of the Erumely excise range in Kottayam Division for the year 2020-23, which was extended till 30.09.2023 as per separate agreements executed between the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7. Toddy shop No. 3, Amaravathi Toddy Shop, was conducted by the petitioner separately. The 6^th respondent conducted toddy shop Nos.1, 2 and

4, while the 7^th respondent conducted toddy shop Nos.5 and 6.

2. On the request of the petitioner, a preference certificate for participating in one-time registration for conducting the sale of toddy shops for the years 2023-26 was issued on 10.09.2023 by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Ponkunnam. An Abkari case under Section 57 (aa) was registered on 14.09.2023 against the petitioner following receipt of a chemical analysis report indicating the presence of starch in a sample taken from the toddy shop operated by the petitioner.

3. Based on the registration of the Abkari case, the preference certificate dated 10.09.2023 issued to the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner compounded the offence by paying a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as per the order dated 23.09.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kottayam. The Government had clarified on 25.10.2023, as per R1(a), that there is no bar in granting preference under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules , 2002, to those who have compounded offences under the Abkari Act and remitted the fine. Even though the offences were compounded, on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted an online application for participating in the sale of toddy shops for the year 2023-26, it was found that he was not eligible for getting an allotment for a toddy shop. Accordingly, the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected through Ext.P13 by the Excise Commissioner and was confirmed by the Government in Ext.P18.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of the preference certificate was wrong even going by the stand of the Government, which is found by the authorities in Exts.P13 and P18, and therefore, the rejection of the revision on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any online application for the sale of the toddy shop for the years 2023-

26 is wrong. If the petitioner was entitled to the preference certificate, as the offence was compounded, the consequences should have followed.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the sale of toddy shops for the coming year, along with respondents 6 and 7, on the strength of the findings entered in his favour even in the impugned orders.

6. This Court had passed an order on 14.01.2026 directing the learned Government Pleader to get instructions on the request made on behalf of the petitioner to permit him to apply along with respondents 6 and 7 for the coming year.

7. The learned Government Pleader submits that it could depend on the Abkari policy for the coming year. However, the conclusion in the orders impugned, despite the findings in favour of the petitioner, the effect of the cancellation of the preference certificate after compounding, cannot be sustained.

8. Under such circumstances, the finding in the impugned orders that since the petitioner has not made any online application, which he could not have made as he was already granted a preference certificate, cannot be sustained and accordingly, Exts.P13 and P18 are quashed. It will be open to the petitioner to make a request before the authorities concerned to permit him to apply along with respondents 6 and 7 for the coming year. Orders shall be pass