Judgment :- 1. The complaint of the petitioner, a co-operative society called the Trichur District Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Co-operative society Ltd., is ostensibly against the decision of the state Government (embodied in an order dated 23-12-1957, a copy of which has been marked as Ext. B) that, as an experimental measure, the right to vend toddy in certain areas during the year 1958-59. should be given to co-operative societies formed by tappers, at the average rental of the previous five years instead of being sold by auction as was the practice theretofore, this favour, if favour it is, being presumably in pursuance of the directive principles of the Constitution. In fact, however, the complaint is against the order dated 27-2-1958 (and notified in the Gazette of that date a copy thereof being Ex. C) by which this right, in respect of the 57 shops in the Trichur Taluk, was, in pursuance of the decision in Ext. B, given to the 3rd respondent, a rival, and an earlier constituted society called the Trichur Taluk Chethu Thozhilali Co-operative society Ltd., in rejection of the petitioner's application (under Ext. A dated 20-2-1958) that the privilege of selling toddy and arrack in the shops of Trichur and Mukundapuram Taluks should be granted to it in accordance with the terms of Ex. B. 2. The matter is governed by the Cochin Abkari Act, I of 1077, and the sections relevant for the present purpose are s.15 and 16 of that Act. Under s.15 of the Act no liquor or intoxicating drug can be sold without a licence; and under s.16 the state Government is authorised to grant to any person or persons, on such conditions and for such period as may deem fit, the exclusive or other privilege of (among other things) selling country liquor. It is in exercise of this authority that the right to vend toddy in the 57 shops in the Trichur Taluk was granted under Ex. C to the 3rd respondent, and it is not the case that either Ext. B or Ext. C offends any of the provisions of the Cochin Abkari Act. The case is that these orders offend Art.14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and must be therefore struck down. 3. C to the 3rd respondent, and it is not the case that either Ext. B or Ext. C offends any of the provisions of the Cochin Abkari Act. The case is that these orders offend Art.14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and must be therefore struck down. 3. It will be noticed that under s.16 of the Abkari Act the right to vend toddy or other country liquor is regarded as the exclusive privilege of the state Government; in other words, as the property of the state Government. No objection is taken as to the constitutionality of s.16 or any other provision of the Act; and if the right to vend toddy can therefore be lawfully regarded as the property of the state Government, it seems to me to follow that the state Government is at liberty to sell that right, or otherwise deal with it, in favour of A or B or X or Y on such terms as it pleases and that no question of offending either Art.14 or Art.19 of the Constitution can conceivably arise. It is not pretended that the petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on the business of selling toddy (hence it is that s.15 and 16 of the Abkari Act have not been assailed); and once it is conceded that the action of the state Government in granting the right to the 3rd respondent is in accordance with s.16 of the Abkari Act I fail to see how any question of discrimination under Art.14 can arise. That action is a purely administrative action in exercise of the power conferred by s.16 of the Act, and the mere circumstance that the notification, Ex. C, cites also the rule-making power in s.29 of the Act, cannot make the notification a rule having the force of law so as to lay it open to the charge of offending Art.14. As I have already said, the essence of the matter is that the right in question is a privilege belonging to the Government; and that being so, the way in which Government choose to deal with this right is its own business and cannot affect the fundamental rights of others. 4. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs-one set. Advocate's fee Rs.150/-. Dismissed.