Antony Dominic, J.@mdashThe petitioner is the licencee of six Toddy Shops in Irinjalakkuda Excise Range. He is an accused in Crime No. 292/2008 of Irinjalakuda Police Station involving offence under Sections 55(a) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act. In this writ petition his grievance is that by Ext.P5 he applied for a clearance certificate in order to claim preference as provided under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Disposal Rules 2002 and that he was issued Ext.P6 rejecting his application in view of the fact that the case referred to above has been registered and charge sheeted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. It is challenging Ext.P6 and for a direction to the respondents to issue clearance certificate, the Writ Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10041/2008.
2. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002 provides for preference. However, one of the conditions for availing preference is that no case registered against the person concerned for offence other than u/s 56 of the Abkari Act shall be pending. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is accused in the crime referred to above involving offence u/s 55(a) of the Abkari Act as well. If that be so, the petitioner is ineligible for the benefit of preference under Rule 5(1)(a).
3. Although the petitioner has explained that the charges against him are unsustainable, since the Rule renders a person, against whom a case is registered, ineligible and admittedly a case has been registered against the petitioner, the unsustainability or otherwise of the charges is irrelevant at this stage. In so far as Ext.P3 judgment is concerned, I notice that this judgment was rendered in the context of the Abkari Policy for the year 2008 - 2009 and not in the context of Rule 5(1)(a) which is referred to above.
In view of all this, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.
