Sarinkumar K.R v. State of Kerala and others (WP(C) Nos. 31424/2023, 35636/2023, 951/2024)

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 31424 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SARINKUMAR K.R AGED 45 YEARS S/O.RAJAPPAN, KULATHUMKAL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDY P.O, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN – 685508 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.G.KARTHIKEYAN NIREESH MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEADQUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033`** - **`2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, IDUKKI, EXCISE COMPLEX, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O, PIN - 685585`** - **`3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA, NEDUMKANDAM P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685553`** - **`4 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA NEDUMKANDAM P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685553`** - **`5 THE JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL ZONE, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM., PIN – 682018`** ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 6STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001 ``` ``` ADDK R7AKHIL C.SASI ``` ``` CHIRAPULI HOUSE, AIMURY EAST, VENGOOR WEST, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683544 (ADDL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27-09- 2023 IN IA.NO.1/2023) ``` ``` BY ADVS. RENJITH B.MARAR LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL P.RAJKUMAR ARUN POOMULLI PREETHA S CHANDRAN ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR ANAND REMESH ABHIRAM.S. ``` ``` S. GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).951/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 35636 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` AKHIL C. SASI, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. C.K. SASI, CHIRAPPULI HOUSE, AIMURY EAST, VENGOOR WEST, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683544 ``` ``` BY ADVS. RENJITH B.MARAR LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL P.RAJKUMAR ARUN POOMULLI PREETHA S CHANDRAN ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR ANAND REMESH ABHIRAM.S. C.R.REKHA KESHAVRAJ NAIR VISWANATH JAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES (A), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001`** ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 4 ``` - **`3 UNDER SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`4 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEADQUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033`** ## **`SRI.S. GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).951/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 951 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` PRAVEEN P.V AGED 50 YEARS S/O.VIDHYADHARAN, AISWARYA BHAVAN, RAJAKANDAM P.O, ANAKKARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN – 685551 ``` ## **`BY ADV VIVEK VENUGOPAL`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, EXCISE HEADQUARTERS, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033`** - **`2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, IDUKKI, EXCISE COMPLEX, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O - 685585`** - **`3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA, NEDUMKANDAM P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN – 685553`** ## **`SRI.S. GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).31424/2023, 35636/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 6 ``` ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2024 [W.P.(C) Nos.31424 and 35636 of 2023 and 951 of 2024] In W.P.(C) No.31424 of 2023, the petitioner, who is licensee of all Toddy Shops in Group No.VII in Udumbanchola Excise Range in Idukki Division from 2007 onwards, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: (i) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get preferential right under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 in respect of the allotment of the toddy shops in Group No.VII in Udumbanchola Excise Range in the light of Ext.P7, preference certificate, issued by the 3[rd] respondent in pursuance to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment of this Hon’ble Court. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 5[th] respondent to give allotment of the Toddy Shops in Group No.VII of the Udumbanchola Excise Range to the petitioner on preferential right as per Rule 5(1)(a) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 in the light of Ext.P7 certificate for the year 2023-26, if the petitioner is otherwise qualified; and (iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem fir in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (iv) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents. ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 7 ``` 2. It is discernible from the pleadings that the petitioner sought for grant of licence to run the Toddy Shops in question and a Preference Certificate was not issued to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 order, compounding the offence and the payment of fee. 3. The petitioner would contend that the 5[th] respondent-Joint Excise Commissioner is the authority for allotting the Shops as per Ext.P1 guidelines and he is bound to accept Ext.P7 Preference Certificate. If the allotment is done in open allotment without giving Preference Certificate to the petitioner, it would be illegal and arbitrary. 4. The petitioner urges that he is entitled to get preferential right under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 in respect of the allotment of Toddy Shops in Group No.VII in Udumbanchola Excise Range in the light of Ext.P7 Preference Certificate. ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 8 ``` 5. W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner therein, who has been granted allotment of Toddy Shops in Group No.VII of Udumbanchola Excise Range pursuant to the allotment scheduled on 25.09.2023 for the year 2023-2026. 6. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the granting of such allotment, the respondents have not confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the Government has issued Ext.P3 Government Order dated 25.10.2023 whereby the Government has declared that even those contractors, who have compounded the offence, would be entitled to the preference as provided under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 communication goes against the law laid down by this Court in Sudheesh T.A. v. Excise Commissioner and others [2019 (2) KHC 49]. In the circumstances, Ext.P3 Government Order ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 9 ``` issued by respondents 2 and 3 is liable to be quashed. 7. W.P.(C) No.951 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner, who is a registered worker attached to the Toddy Shop No.38 in Group No.VII in Udumbanchola Excise Range. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-opening of the Toddy Shop, which causes undue hardship and loss to the toddy workers. The petitioner therefore seeks to declare that the petitioner and other workers attached to the Toddy Shop in Group No.VII in Udumbanchola Excise Range are entitled to conduct the Shops on ‘Departmental Management’ basis in the name of a nominated worker subject to the result of W.P.(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 9. It is evident from the pleadings in the writ petitions that the sale in respect of the Toddy Shops in Group No.VII in ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 10 ``` Udumbanchola Excise Range for the year 2023-2026 has been ordered in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31424 of 2023 contends that he is entitled to preference in the matter of allotment of Toddy Shops in view of Ext.P7 Preference Certificate issued in his favour. Therefore, the respondents committed a grave error in assigning the Toddy Shops to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023. 10. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023 is that Ext.P3 communication of the Additional Chief Secretary addressed to the Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, is illegal to the extent Ext.P3 permits preferential treatment to be given to Abkari Contractors, who have compounded serious abkari offences. 11. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023 relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others v. ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 11 ``` ## K. Sridharan and others [2021 (2) KHC 99], wherein this Court held as follows: 22. We have already taken note of the fact that application of the rule of beneficial construction on ex post facto law virtue of Article 20(1) of the Constitution would apply if a subsequent law mollifies the rigour of law in a previous law and provides for a lesser punishment than one prescribed for the same offence. The immunity extends only against punishment by Courts for a criminal offence and therefore, the beneficial construction by virtue of ex post facto law, in terms of Article 20(1) applies only in criminal proceedings that too only when the ex post facto law mollifies the rigour of a criminal law, as held earlier. In otherwords, the prohibition by virtue of Article 20(1) applies only in proceedings which partake the character of criminal proceedings and it will not have any application in respect of civil liability. In such circumstances, the question is what exactly is the meaning of civil liability? No such term is coined and defined under the Abkari Act. However, it does not mean that the penal provisions for commission of Abkari offences or violation of conditions of licence would not be having any civil consequences or civil liability. In Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, the term 'civil liability' is given the meaning as 1. 'liability' imposed under the civil, as opposed to the criminal law. 2. the state of being legally obligated for civil damages. In P.M.A Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (1995 KHC 449 AIR 1995 SC 2001: 1995 (2) KLT SN 37: 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286: 1995 AIR SCW 3131: 1995 AIR SCW 3133), the Apex Court held that the word 'civil nature' is wider than the 'civil proceeding' and that the same would, therefore, be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristic of affection of one's rights which are not only civil but of civil nature. In the decision in ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 12 ``` Hatisingh Mfg. Co.Ltd v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1960 SC 923 (1960 KHC 702: 1960 (3) SCR 528: 1960 (2) LLJ 1: 1960-61 (18) FJR 181: 1960 (1) FLR 402), the Apex Court held that the prohibition under Article 20(1) would not apply to civil liability. In that case, an Act was passed in 1957 whereby liability was imposed on the employers for closing their undertaking, to pay compensation since November 28, 1956. The liability could be enforced by coercive process leading to imprisonment in case of failure to discharge it. The Apex Court held that the liability imposed by the law was a civil liability which was not an offence and so Article 20(1) could not be applied to the liability for the period concerned viz., for the period from November 28, 1956 to June 1957. 23. In view of the aforesaid position obtained in regard to civil liability, the question to be looked into is whether commission of abkari offence of 'mixing starch with liquor casts any civil liability. To consider the same, certain provisions of law have to be looked into. Firstly, we will refer to S.26 of the Abkari Act. It deals with the power of the Commissioner to recall licences and it empowers the Commissioner to cancel or suspend any licence or permit granted under the Act under situations contemplated under sub-section (b) thereof, as well. The relevant portion of the said section reads thus: "26. Power to recall licenses etc.- The Commissioner may cancel or suspend any license or permit granted under this Act- (a) xxxx xxXX XXXX (b) in the event of any breach by the holder of such license or permit, or by his servant, or by any one acting with his express or implied permission on his behalf, of any of the terms or conditions of such license or permit" ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 13 ``` 24. The power to recall the licence is conferred on the Commissioner of Excise in the event of any breach by the holder of such licence as well. Going by R.9(2) of the Disposal Rules, toddy offered for sale shall be natural and conforming to such specifications and complying to such restrictions as may be notified under clause (n) of R.2. Specifications and restrictions to be complied with, notified under R.2(n), inter alia, mandating that toddy shall be free from starch by the Government as per G.O. (P). No.25/2007/TD dated 14/02/2007 and in pursuance thereof mixing starch with toddy was to attract the offence under S.57(a) of the Abkari Act punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend fifty thousand rupees or with both. The extenuatory amendment was made as per Ordinance No.38 of 2017 dated 21/12/2017, which was later incorporated into the principal Act as per Act 25 of 2018. The fact is that the alleged commission of offence of mixing of starch with toddy, falling under S.57(a), was prior to 21/12/2017 when it was a serious offence. The extenuatory amendment made to S.57(a) made the offence of mixing starch with liquor a separate offence under S.57(aa) of the Act a less serious offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees. Whatever be the degree of punishment prescribed under post and pre-amendment to S.57(a), the fact is that the act of mixing starch with liquor, here toddy, continues to be an offence and hence, its commission would amount to breach of conditions of licence. In otherwords, in terms of R.9(2), when there is violation of the specifications and restrictions notified by the Government under R.2(n) of the Disposal Rules, the action, rather, the commission of offence of mixing starch with toddy should be regarded as violation of conditions of licence and ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 14 ``` when there occur breach of conditions of licence, it would fall within the purview of S.26(b) of the Abkari Act. In such circumstances, especially in view of the fact that the rule of beneficial construction based on ex post facto law would apply only in respect of criminal proceedings in view of Article 20(1) of the Constitution and it would have no impact on civil consequences or civil liability, according to us, despite the composition of offence under S.67A the Commissioner of Excise would and should retain the power available under S.26 of the Abkari Act. But at the same time, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was correct in directing reconsideration of the issue of cancellation of licence subject to the outcome of application, if any, for composition of the offence for the simple reason that going by S.26 all cases falling under 26(b) do not call for cancellation of licence. Obviously, the question of necessity to cancel the licence may differ from case to case, depending upon the nature of breach of the terms of the licence. This position is settled by this Court in Banerji Memorial Club, Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Excise (2009 (3) KHC 623 2009 (3) KLT 950: ILR 2009 (3) Ker. 684). In fact, the said position is evident from S.26 itself wherein while repositing the Commissioner the power to cancel or suspend any licence or permit the word 'may' was used by the Legislature in the matter of its exercise and thereby virtually granted discretion to the Commissioner to cancel or not to cancel, to suspend or not to suspend any licence or permit granted under the Abkari Act taking note of the nature and gravity of the offence which may differ from case to case. In the cases on hand, it is evident that the Commissioner did not consider the question whether, despite the subsequent developments extenuating the rigour of the law regarding penal provisions, cancellation of licence is required or not. There cannot be an automatic cancellation and the ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 15 ``` requirement for cancellation would depend upon the consideration of all aspects by the Commissioner of Excise in accordance with law. However, the fact is that in the cases on hand, after the cancellation of licences issued in favour of the appellants concerned, re-auction of shops was conducted and presently, the shops concerned are being run by the successful bidders in the resale. Still, we are of the view that in case the respondents-writ petitioners submit representations for compounding the offence, the authority competent shall consider such applications in accordance with law and subject to the outcome, consider the issue whether cancellation of the licence was called for in the matter. We think it absolutely unnecessary for us to consider the question what benefit a composition would fetch to the person seeking composition of an offence mentioned in the Table under S.67A of the Abkari Act other than getting released from custody, in view of our findings on the question of civil liability. 12. A reading of the afore Division Bench judgment would indicate that the issue involved was held to be of discretion and the Excise Commissioner can consider the gravity of the offence, which is compounded by the Abkari Contractors. The judgment in Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others (supra) was delivered in the year 2021 and Ext.P3 communication impugned in W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023 is of the year 2023. In the circumstances, it ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ## **`16`** is appropriate for the respondents to consider the law laid down by this Court in Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others (supra) also while considering the issue of confirmation of sale under Rule 5(15) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. At any rate, the issue of confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023 is pending consideration before the Excise Commissioner. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Excise Commissioner can very well consider the impact of the judgment of this Court and Ext.P3 communication issued by the Chief Secretary. 13. Considering the entire facts of the case, I am of the view that the writ petitions can be disposed of giving appropriate directions to the Excise Commissioner. 14. W.P.(C) Nos.31424 and 35636 of 2023 are therefore disposed of directing the Excise Commissioner, who is the 1[st] respondent in W.P.(C) No.31424 of 2023, to consider ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ## **`17`** the issue of confirmation of sale of Toddy Shops in Group No.VII in Udumbanchola Excise Range in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35636 of 2023 and take appropriate decision thereon after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in both the writ petitions. A decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks. 15. As regards W.P.(C) No.951 of 2024, it will be open to the 3[rd] respondent-Circle Inspector of Excise to consider the application for running the Toddy Shops under Departmental Management, in consultation with the Excise Commissioner, in accordance with law, since the issue of confirmation of sale is pending before the Excise Commissioner. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 18 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31424/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** |**`EXHIBIT-P1`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GUIDELINES`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GUIDELINES`**|**`DATED`**| |---|---|---|---| ||**`07.09.2023`**<br>**`ISSUED`**|**`BY`**<br>**`THE`**|**`1ST`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT-P2`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.U.C.02/`**||| ||**`2023 DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED BY THE`**||| ||**`3RD RESPONDENT.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT-P3`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF `**|**`THE CERTIFICATE`**|| ||**`DATED 13.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH`**||| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT-P4`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF`**|**`THE CHALAN`**|**`DATED`**| ||**`12.09.2023 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF`**||| ||**`RS.25,000/-.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT-P5`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF`**|**`THE CHALAN`**|**`DATED`**| ||**`12.09.2023 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF`**||| ||**`RS.25,000/-.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT-P6`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT`**||**`DATED`**| ||**`15.09.2023`**<br>**`IN`**|**`WP(C)NO.30339/2023`**|| ||**`PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT-P7`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF `**|**`THE PREFERENCE`**|| ||**`CERTIFICATE`**<br>**`NO.UC.2/2023`**||**`DATED`**| ||**`16.09.2023`**<br>**`ISSUED`**|**`BY`**<br>**`THE`**|**`3RD`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT P8`**|**`TRUE`**<br>**`PHOTOCOPY`**|**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**|**`ORDER`**| ||**`NO.EXC/4346/2023-XA2`**|**`DATED 21.09.2023`**|| ||**`PASSED BY THE EXCISE`**|**`COMMISSIONER.`**|| |**`EXHIBIT P9`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF `**|**`THE REPLY `**|**`DATED`**| ||**`21.09.2023 SUBMITTED`**|**`BEFORE THE`**|**`EXCISE`**| ||**`COMMISSIONER.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT P10`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT`**||**`DATED`**| ||**`12.09.2023 IN WP(C)NO.29716/2023`**||| |**`EXHIBIT P11`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF`**||| ||**`THE`**<br>**`COMMISSIONER`**|**`OF`**|**`EXCISE`**| ||**`NO.EXC/KTM/23/25/032/III/142792 `**||**`DATED`**| ||**`29.09.2023.`**||| |**`EXHIBIT-P12`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF`**|**`THE LETTER`**|**`DATED`**| ||**`25.10.2023`**<br>**`ISSUED`**|**`BY`**<br>**`THE`**|**`6TH`**| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**||| ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 19 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT R7(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 26.09.2023FORANAMOUNTOF RS.2,20,500/- EXHIBIT R7(B)A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE ADDITIONAL 7 TH RESPONDENT TO OPEN TREASURY SAVINGS ACCOUNT PLEDGED IN THE NAME OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, IDUKKI EXHIBIT R7(C)A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 26.09.2023 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,050/- ``` ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 20 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35636/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED`**| |---|---| ||**`07.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE EXCISE`**| ||**`COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT`**| ||**`FILED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF`**| ||**`EXCISE, IDUKKI IN W.P.(C).NO. 31424 OF`**| ||**`2023`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER`**| ||**`DATED 25.10.2023 BEARING NUMBER`**| ||**`G1/100/2023-TAXES ISSUED BY THE 3 RD`**| ||**`RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 2 ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT`**| ``` WP(C) No.31424 of 2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 21 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 951/2024`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.09.2023 IN WP(C)NO.31424/ 2023. Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED30.12.2023SUBMITTEDTO RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. ```