Petitioners 1 to 3 are the joint licensees of Toddy Shop

No.37 of Group No.6 of Vaikom Excise Range in Kottayam

District, for the Abkari year 2018-19; and petitioners 4 to 7

are the joint licensees of Toddy Shop No.38 of Group No.7 of

Vaikom Excise Range in Kottaym District, for the Abkari year

2018-19. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of

certiorari to quash Ext.P3 communication dated 10.10.2018 of

the 3^rd respondent Circle Inspector of Excise issued to

petitioners 1 to 3; and Ext.P4 communication dated

10.10.2018 of the said respondent issued to petitioners 4 to 7.

In the aforesaid communications, it is stated that the

respective toddy shops are found to be located not within the

prescribed boundaries and accordingly, the respective licensees

are directed to shift the respective toddy shops within the

prescribed boundaries. The petitioners have also sought for a

writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow

petitioners 1 to 3 to run toddy shop No.37 of Group No.6 in

Vaikom Excise Range and petitioners 4 to 7 to run the toddy

shop No.38 of Group No.7 in Vaikom Excise Range in the

3

boundaries (Eluka) specified in Exts.P1 and P2 licenses,

respectively; and a writ of mandamus commanding the

respondents to correct the mistake, if any, in the description of

boundaries in the Gazette notification or any other documents

and allow the petitioners to run the toddy shops licensed to

them in the boundaries specified in Exts.P1 and P2 licenses.

2.

On 30.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time

to get instructions. While ordering the writ petition to be listed

on 05.11.2018, this Court has made it clear that status quo as

on that day, in respect of the toddy shops in question, shall be

maintained till then. The said interim order, which was

extended from time to time, is still in force.

3.

A statement dated 30.11.2018 has been filed on

behalf of the 2^nd respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in

this writ petition; which is followed by a counter affidavit of the

2^nd respondent dated 25.02.2019. Along with the counter

affidavit, a copy of the communication dated 04.11.2018 of the

3^rd respondent, addressed to the 2^nd respondent, is placed on

record. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit to the

statement filed by the 2^nd respondent.

4.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

4

and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents.

5.

During the course of arguments, in order to

substantiate the contentions raised in this writ petition, the

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would place reliance

on Ext.P5 communication dated 26.10.2018 of the 3^rd

respondent Circle Inspector of Excise. Per contra, the learned

Senior Government Pleader would place reliance on Ext.R2(b)

communication dated 04.11.2018 of the 3^rd respondent

addressed to the 2^nd respondent.

6.

The question as to whether there is any printing

mistake in the Eluka, while publishing the Gazette notification

or whether the toddy shops are situated outside the notified

Eluka, is a factual dispute, which cannot be adjudicated in a

writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Now, Ext.P6 application made by petitioners 1 to 3 and Ext.P7

application made by petitioners 4 to 7 are pending

consideration before the additional 4^th respondent. Therefore it

is for the said respondent to take an appropriate decision on

Exts.P6 and P7 applications made by the petitioners, with

notice to them and after affording them an opportunity of

being heard.

5

7.

Considering the fact that the period of the licence

will expire on 31.03.2019, it is for the additional 4^th respondent

to take an appropriate decision on Exts.P6 and P7 on or before

28.03.2019.

8.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by

directing the