Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38075/2008 of T.K.SASIDHARAN Vs STATE OF KERALA on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38075 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. T.K. SASIDHARAN, S/O. THANDASSARY KUNJIKRISHNAN, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38075 of 2008(G)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------
1. T.K. SASIDHARAN,
S/O. THANDASSARY KUNJIKRISHNAN,
VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
2. V.G. SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. VALIYAPARAMBIL GOVINDAN,
CHEMBOOKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
THRISSUR.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
THRISSUR.
GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 38075 OF 2008 (G)
====================
Dated this the 26[th]day of December, 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners were contractors of arrack shops in Group No.IV inTrichur Excise Range during the Abkari year 1993-94. Defaults werecommitted and amounts are remaining unpaid. According to them, theyhad applied for availing of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme announcedduring the year 2000, introducing Rule 6 (25A) of the Abkari Shops(Disposal in Auction) Rules 1974 and the application made was notaccepted. Thereupon they filed O.P.No.25094 of 2000 which was disposedof by Ext.P1 judgment directing that fresh orders be passed in the manneras directed therein. For reasons of their own, petitioners did not pursuethe matter further and did not avail of the benefit of the scheme.
2. Meanwhile by Ext.P2 order dated 26.05.2008, AmnestyScheme was announced by the Government of Kerala, the period of whichhas been extended by separate orders, till 31.12.2008. Petitioners madeapplication for availing of the benefit of Ext.P2 amnesty scheme and thathas been rejected by Ext.P7 on the ground that in view of Ext.P1,petitioners have to discharge the liability as quantified in terms of the 2000scheme.
3. According to the petitioners even though they did not avail ofthe benefit of the 2000 scheme, they are entitled to claim the benefit ofthe 2008 scheme announced by Ext.P2. Complaining of rejection of theirapplication as per Ext.P7, they have filed Ext.P8 before the 2[nd] respondent.In this writ petition, petitioners are praying to quash Ext.P7 and to declarethat they are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2.
4. It is true that by Ext.P1 judgment, petitioners were heldentitled to the benefit of 2000 scheme and that the petitioners did notavail of the benefits thereof. However, that does not make them ineligibleto claim the benefit of Ext.P2 amnesty scheme announced by respondentsin 2008. It has to be remembered that the beneficiaries of Ext.P2 are alldefaulters who have been given an opportunity to liquidate their liability bypaying the amounts as specified in Ext.P2. Therefore, the fact that thepetitioners have defaulted in paying the amount when they were thelicensees or that despite an application made for the benefit of the 2000scheme, they did not avail of the benefit thereof, even inspite of Ext.P1judgment, does not mean that the petitioners are ineligible for the benefitof Ext.P2. Therefore the rejection of their application for the reasonsmentioned in Ext.P7 is unsustainable. In view of this, I set aside Ext.P7
It is true that by Ext.P1 judgment, petitioners were held
It is true that by Ext.P1 judgment, petitioners were held and I direct that the petitioners are eligible to avail of the benefit of Ext.P2amnesty scheme. In view of this, the 3[rd] respondent is directed toconsider Ext.P6, the application made by the petitioners for the benefit ofExt.P2 scheme and pass orders thereon. This shall be done asexpeditiously as possible at any rate within 4 weeks of production of acopy of this judgment.
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE