Judgment :- G. Sivarajan, J. The matter relates to the grant of toddy depot licence under the provisions of the Toddy Deport Licence Rules, 1965. The petitioner is a co-operative society constituted for the purpose of conducting toddy business in the State. It is conducting 86 toddy shops of Kodungalloor range as per licence issued under the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Rules for the year 2001-2002. The petitioner, it is stated, had obtained permit for Inter Division Transportation of toddy from Palakkad Excise Division on 30.9.2001 for transportation of 1020 litres of coconut toddy from the limits of Chittoor range (Ext. P2). The petitioner then applied for toddy depot licence on 7.4.2001 (Ext. P6). Since the first respondent did not pass any orders on the said application inspite of reminders the petitioner approached this court by filing writ petition O.P. No. 19629 of 2001, which was disposed of by judgment dated 9.7.2001 (Ext. P4). The first respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Toddy Deport Licence Rules within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to the said direction the first respondent passed an order dated 27.7.2001 (Ext. P1) whereby he rejected the said application. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this original petition. 2. A statement is filed by the second respondent. It is stated therein that the petitioner had submitted an application for sanctioning of Toddy depot in building No. IV/370 of Sree Narayanapuram Panchayat in Kodungalloor Taluk to the first respondent through the second respondent by registered post and that the said application was received in the office of the second respondent only on 3.6.2001 and the same was forwarded to the first respondent on 2.7.2001 with remarks for necessary action. It is stated that toddy shop licences were issued in the name of Sri. Gopinathan, who is the licensee of all toddy shops in Kodungalloor range, that the said Gopinathan had remitted an amount of Rs. It is stated that toddy shop licences were issued in the name of Sri. Gopinathan, who is the licensee of all toddy shops in Kodungalloor range, that the said Gopinathan had remitted an amount of Rs. 1,29,000/- being the tree tax in Kodungalloor range for the first half year April, 2001-September, 2001, that there is no short tappable coconut trees during this year and that for getting more benefit and excess profit for the society the President Sri Gopinathan applied for the inter range tapping of 680 coconut trees from the limits of toddy shop Nos. 37, 38 and 39/2001-2002 of Chittoor range. It is also stated that the petitioner society is not entitled to get the toddy depot licence in Kodungalloor range, that toddy depot licence are ordinarily be issued to the persons who have taken all the toddy shops of range enbloc, that the petitioner is not a person but they are only a registered society, which is represented by its President and Secretary elected by the members of the Society, that the person elected could be substituted at any stage as per the changing decisions of the society, that since the moved by the society represented the Secretary who is not responsible in his personal capacity is not eligible to get a toddy depot licence as per exist rules and that in the above circumstances respondents are statutorily bound to issue toddy depot licence. 3. Sri M.K. Damodaran, learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that the first respondent did not apply mind to the application submitted by the petitioner and he had passed the impugned order mechanically and in arbitrary manner simply on the basis of the report submitted by the second respondent. The Senior counsel also submitted that the reason stated in the said order that the petitioner has not fulfilled the Toddy Depot Licence Rule No. 1 and Toddy Deport licence condition No. 2 are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The senior counsel further submitted that as per the provisions of the Toddy Depot Licence Rules the first respondent cannot deny toddy depot licence provided the conditions specified in the rules are satisfied and that in the present case the petitioner had got licence in respect of 86 toddy shops in Kodungalloor range and for the proper and effective supply of toddy to all the shops a centralized depot is absolutely necessary. The senior counsel also relied on the decision of this court in Ayyappan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (1998(2) KLT 849) and the circular dated 3.7.1999 (Ext. P3) issued by the Government in implementation of the direction contained in the aforesaid judgment and submitted that the first respondent was bound to grant the toddy depot licence to the petitioner as requested in the application (Ext. P6). 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on the basis of the averments made in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent submitted that the 2nd respondent was justified in refusing to grant toddy depot licence to the petitioner for the reasons stated in Ext. P1 order. 5. The petitioner society, as already noted, had obtained licence in respect of 86 toddy shops of the Kodungalloor range for an annual rental of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The society has also obtained a toddy transport permit for inter-division transportation of toddy from Palakkad Excise Division. According to the petitioner, toddy obtained from the areas covered by each toddy shop is not sufficient and in certain cases it is in excess for a particular shop. It is also the society's case that the toddy brought from Palakkad by way of inter-division transport under the permit (Ext. P2) cannot be straight away transported to any particular shop and therefore for a proper distribution of toddy to all the 86 shops, a centrally located depot is absolutely necessary. The petitioner applied to the Ist respondent for sanctioning a toddy shop in building No. IV/370 of Sree Narayanapuram Panchayat in Kodungalloor Taluk. The Ist respondent forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for remarks. The 2nd respondent reported that there is no shortage of tappable coconut trees in the Kodungalloor range during this year and that it is only for getting more profit the President of the society had obtained a transport permit for inter-range tapping of 680 coconut trees from the limits of Toddy Shop Nos. 37, 38 and 39/2001-2002 of Chitoor range. The 2nd respondent reported that there is no shortage of tappable coconut trees in the Kodungalloor range during this year and that it is only for getting more profit the President of the society had obtained a transport permit for inter-range tapping of 680 coconut trees from the limits of Toddy Shop Nos. 37, 38 and 39/2001-2002 of Chitoor range. It is also their case that the petitioner society is not entitled to get a toddy depot licence in Kodungalloor range as per the rules since, (i) toddy depot licence has to be given only to a person, but the Society is not person; (ii) the society represented by the secretary is not personally responsible; (iii) the petitioner did not satisfy Rule No. 1 of the rules; and (iv) the petitioner didi not fulfil condition No. 2 of the Rules since the toddy depot building is not situate in a central place in the tapping area enroute to the toddy shops. According to the respondents, the building proposed for the toddy depot is not centrally located. It is also stated that toddy cannot be stored in sealed bottles since fermentation will make the bottles exploded and filling the open bottles could be done in any toddy shop premises also. The petitioner has produced a sketch (Exr. P5) of the territory showing the relative position of the toddy shops of the range and location of the proposed toddy depot. This according to the respondent does not reflect the correct location. 6. Toddy Depot Licence Rules provides for issuance of toddy depot licence. Rule 1 of the said rules provides that toddy depot licence shall ordinarily be issued to persons who have taken all the toddy shops of a range or ranges enbloc. The scope of the said rule has been considered by another learned single Judge (K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.) in Ayyappan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (1998(2) KLT 849). It was observed that Rule 1 gives emphasis on range or ranges and not on the group or groups and not on toddy shop or shops and that going by the literal meaning of Rule 1 Toddy Depot Licence shall be issued to persons who have taken all the toddy shops of a range or ranges enbloc. It was observed that Rule 1 gives emphasis on range or ranges and not on the group or groups and not on toddy shop or shops and that going by the literal meaning of Rule 1 Toddy Depot Licence shall be issued to persons who have taken all the toddy shops of a range or ranges enbloc. It was also observed that the words 'all the toddy shops of a range or ranges enbloc' have got well defined meaning in the sense that the licence shall be given only to persons who have taken all the toddy shops of a range or ranges enbloc and that the word "enbloc' means one unit, whole sale or as a body or whole in a lump or mass and further that Rule 1 is only directory and can be departed from on extraordinary or exceptional circumstance for good reasons. It was further observed that the question as to what are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances under which depot licence could be issued is primarily for the excise authorities to decide and that it may not be possible to lay down any hard and fast rule or a fixed criterion to be applicable to all the cases. Finally it is stated that the intention of the legislature is not to grant depot licence to those who are having few toddy shops or few groups as the case may be. The learned Judge has also held that those are areas where Excise Authorities has to exercise their discretion judiciously and that since no explanatory not is attached to the Rules government may think or issuing certain guidelines for proper guidance of the Excise Officials, so that there will not be any arbitrary exercise of discretion. The learned Judge in the said case directed the Assistant Excise Commissioner concerned to consider applications in accordance with law. Pursuant to the observations made by the learned single Judge in the above said judgment, the Government issued a circular No. 13544/A3/99/TD, dt. 3.7.1999 (Ext. P3). Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said circular reads as follows : "2. In the Toddy Depot Rules it has been laid down that Toddy Depot licence shall ordinarily be issued to persons who have taken all the toddy shops of a Range or Ranges, enbloc. The word 'ordinarily' gives a certain amount of elasticity to the rule. P3). Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said circular reads as follows : "2. In the Toddy Depot Rules it has been laid down that Toddy Depot licence shall ordinarily be issued to persons who have taken all the toddy shops of a Range or Ranges, enbloc. The word 'ordinarily' gives a certain amount of elasticity to the rule. In normal cases when the toddy shops of a range are bid by a contractor enbloc only one toddy Depot need be granted. But in cases where the shops are not disposed Range-wise there may be more than one contractor in a range. In order to enable them to store Toddy, the Assistant Excise Commissioners may grant more than one Toddy Depot in a Range taking into consideration the actual number of contractors. If a bidder has 5 or more groups of Toddy shops in a Range, one Depot may be granted by the Assistant Excise Commissioners concerned. Depot need not be granted to those who have bid only four groups or less. 3. But there may be situation where Excise Department would permit licence holder to transport toddy from outside the Range/Division, if there is no sufficient toddy available within the area of his group or ranges. There may be occasions where a person might have taken the privilege of vending toddy in certain areas, where toddy is not freely available and has to transport from various other ranges. Difficulties of transporting toddy directly to the toddy shops probably due to distance to be covered or local disadvantage, such as a hilly or remote area where sufficient number of trees are not available cannot be ruled out. In these cases the Assistant Excise Commissioners may grant Depot Licenses to such contractors after obtaining prior sanction from the Excise Commissioner even if the bidder has only less than 5 groups." The Assistant Excise Commissioners were directed to see that Depot licences are issued only in deserving conditions depending on the actual requirements. 7. As already noted, the Ist respondent has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the second respondent has reported that the petitioner has not fulfilled the Toddy Depot Licence Rule 1 and Toddy Depot Licence Condition No. 2. 7. As already noted, the Ist respondent has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the second respondent has reported that the petitioner has not fulfilled the Toddy Depot Licence Rule 1 and Toddy Depot Licence Condition No. 2. As already noted, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner being a society is not a 'person' referred to in Rule 1 and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get Toddy Depot Licence under Rule 1. Here it must be noted that for the year 2001-2002, licences for conducting toddy business are issued only to the societies. As such if the contention of the respondent is accepted no licensee of toddy shop will be entitled to get toddy depot licence. That apart, it must be noted that the word 'person' used in Rule 1 of the rules mentioned above, it full effect is given to the said expression, it will include even a company or a corporation (See Motipur Zamindari Co. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1953 SC 320). Section 2(26) of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, defines 'person' as including a company or association or body of individual whether incorporated or not. Looked at from any angle the petitioner society is a person coming within the purview of Rule 1 of the rules mentioned above. As such the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not fulfilled the provisions of Rule 1 of the rules cannot be sustained. 8. The petitioner is the licensee of 86 toddy shops of Kodungaloor range which would show that the petitioner has taken all the toddy shops of the said range enbloc. The respondents have also no case that the petitioner has not taken all the shops of the Kodungalloor range enbloc. The only other contention taken by the respondents is that the building No. IV/370 of Sree Narayanapuram Panchayat in Kodungallor Taluk suggested by the petitioner for issuing depot licence is not centrally located. The condition No. 2 of the licence form provides that toddy depot shall be established in a central place in the tapping area enroute to the toddy shops. According to the petitioner, the said building is located in a central place. From the sketch furnished by the petitioner also, it would appear that it is located by and large in a central place. According to the petitioner, the said building is located in a central place. From the sketch furnished by the petitioner also, it would appear that it is located by and large in a central place. However, it is not a matter to be determined with any precision but only approximately. 9. As already noted, the Government have issued guidelines in the matter of grant of toddy depot licence in Ext. P3 circular. The Ist respondent is bound to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the said guidelines. The Ist respondent, in the instant case, has acted solely on the basis of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I set aside Ext. P1 order. I direct the Ist respondent to consider the application dt. 23-7-2001 submitted by the petitioner afresh in accordance with the rules mentioned above, the circular (Ext. P3) issued by the Government and the observations contained in this judgment, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will also be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing orders as directed above. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.