AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 260 wordsSathish Ninan, J
Alleging storage of adulterated toddy, the licence held by the petitioner with regard to the toddy shops in Group No.II of Aluva Excise Range was suspended by the 2nd respondent, as per Ext P3. Further, the petitioner was required to show cause why the licence shall not be cancelled.
According to the petitioner, a counsel was engaged to appear before the 2nd respondent and the counsel had appeared and argued the case. Thereafter an opportunity was sought, for further hearing for the reason that the chemical analysis report was obtained in the meantime and submissions were required to be made on its basis. However, the 2nd respondent did not grant time and passed Ext P6 order cancelling the licence. It is aggrieved thereby that the petitioner has approached this Court.
Ext P6 order is dated 18.06.2021. Ext P8 chemical analysis report is dated 09.04.2021. Evidently Ext P8 report has not been taken note of while passing Ext P6 order. Ext P6 is liable to be interfered with on that ground.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext P6 order is quashed. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner will be entitled to bring to the notice of the 2nd respondent all relevant materials including Ext P8. Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will appear for hearing before the 2nd respondent on 30.11.2021.