Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, in each of the writ petitions, was the successful bidder in respect of certain toddy shops in Kalkulam taluk, Kanyakumari Dt. According to the petitioner, the monthly kist amount for which he had taken the shops was inclusive of the tree tax payable by the petitioner in respect of the trees from which toddy is tapped. At the end of the auction period, having paid the entire kist amount without any default, the petitioner in each of the writ petitions asked for return of the earnest money deposit. At that time, the respondents claimed an additional one months kist for each shop on the ground that the same is due as tree tax. The contention in the writ petition is that the demand is illegal and therefore the petitioner in each of the writ petitions, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to for bear them from enforcing the demand for tree tax and to direct the respondents to refund the earnest money deposit, in respect of each shop. 2. In reply to these averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the respondents have stated as follows— “I submit that on the direction of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Madras, in his letter No. H2/Pol 201/82 dated 13-3-82 the Excise Officers were asked to collect tree tax equivalent to one months kist from all the toddy shop renters vide Collectors R1/Pd1 4444/B2 dared 3-4-82. Accordingly, the Excise Officer, Kalkulam third respondent herein, has taken steps to realise the arrears of tree tax equivalent to one months kist due from the petitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.” The learned counsel, for the petitioners rightly argues that it is not open to the Commissioner by a mere letter to mulct the petitioner with any additional liability other than that which was contemplated under the rules at the time of conducting the auction. The respondents also referred to the fact that as per R. 41(b) of the Tamil Nadu Toddy Rules 1981, the licencee shall be bound by all additional general rules for the management of shops or for the tapping drawing transport and sale of toddy which may hereafter be prescribed under the Act or under any law or by orders of the Commissioner made from time to time. The learned counsel for the petitioners says the letter dated 13-3 1982 cannot be brought within the purview of R. 41(b) of the Rules. The Rules and orders contemplated under R. 41(b) of the rules are of a different nature and a mere letter of the Commissioner cannot be equated to a rule or order passed under R. 41(b) of the rules. The Commissioners letter does not even purport to be an order under R. 41(b), Accordingly, I reject the contention of the respondents and uphold the contention of the petitioners. The writ petitions will stand allowed and there will be no order as to costs.