Kerala High Court
P.G.Jagannivasan vs The Excise Commissioner on 31 March, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9985 of 2010(W)
1. P.G.JAGANNIVASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO
3. O.R.RAGHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 9985 OF 2010 (W)
=====================
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner's case is that he participated in the auction for toddy shops held on 19/3/2010. It is stated that, on that occassion, demand drafts worth Rs.1,54,400/- were lost from his possession. According to him, he came to know that the 3rd respondent got the demand drafts and made use of those demand drafts for purchasing privilege in respect of toddy shop Nos.22 and 23 of Erattupetta Excise Range. It is stated that thereupon he made Ext.P3 complaint to the Commissioner of Excise and filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the Commissioner to enquire into the matter.
2. Notice was issued to the 3rd respondent and counsel appears and submits that the demand drafts were purchased by him. He also submits that while in the writ petition, petitioner does not have a case that demand drafts were lost in the auction hall, he has set up such a case only in Ext.P3 complaint. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not so far made any complaint to the police and that the entire facts alleged are incorrect. WPC No. 9985/10 :2 :
3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submission today also and even wanted to produce documents evidencing that demand drafts were purchased by him, from the submissions made by both sides, it is obvious that the entire facts canvassed by the petitioner are disputed by the 3rd respondent. Unless this Court prima facie finds substance in the submissions made by the petitioner, this Court will not be justified in directing the 1st respondent to take action on Ext.P3, which might even result in cancellation of the licence issued in favour of the 3rd respondent. In the facts of this case, I do not think such a direction can be issued.
Writ petition therefore is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to prosecute his grievance before the appropriate forum.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp