K Vinod Chandran, J. - (1.) The Writ Appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which followed the common judgment in WP(C) No.13570/2010 and connected cases dated 10.12.2015. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise dated 24.11.2011, during the pendency of the writ petition, produced along with an I.A, was also set aside by the impugned judgment.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent points out that the judgment which was relied on, was affirmed by a Division Bench in an appeal filed by the State. Special Leave Petition was filed and is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with an order of stay. In such circumstances, it was prayed that the Writ Appeal itself may be adjourned to another date awaiting the result of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The submission was made on the premise that the judgment relied on by the learned Single Judge was on identical set of facts. Hence, we were of the opinion that the Writ Appeal could be rejected following the judgment of the Division Bench as of now and to avoid a further litigation by the State; permit the State to proceed against the petitioner if the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in favour of the State in the pending SLP. However, the learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that there is a distinction on facts with the pending matter and even the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by this Court is on totally different facts. In the circumstances, we heard the matter in its entirety.
(3.) The respondents who were the licensees had taken on license toddy shops from 18 to 38 of Vamanapuram Excise Range for the year 2000-01. A security deposit of Rs.1,05,60,000/- was also remitted in lieu of three monthly installments of kisth. The kisth payable for the entire period of one year of license was permitted to be remitted, even as per the terms of the license, in ten monthly installments. Licensee remitted five installments, but defaulted the sixth installment. The State adjusted the sixth installment from the security deposit and the licensee was asked to replenish the security deposit to the extent adjusted. On the failure of the licensee to replenish the security deposit, the license was canceled on 29.11.2000. In the context of the cancellation, the adjustment was not given effect to and forfeiture of entire security deposit was made. There was then raised a claim for the balance five installments. On 22.12.2000, the Commissioner confirmed the order of cancellation. So far, the facts are identical to that in the reported judgment, as agreed to by both parties.;