Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts. P5 and P6. Ext. P5 is a Notification issued by the Government amending Rules 13 and 14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The amendment has retrospectivity from 1.7.2001. Ext. P6 is passed by the Commissioner of Excise rejecting and application dt. 11.7.2001 submitted by the petitioner for grant of an FL3 licence to his hotel called Vaisakh International Hotels (P) Ltd. at Payyannur, relying on Ext. P5 amendment. 2. His application was earlier rejected relying on a Government policy. He challenged the same before this court in O.P. 30961 of 2001. His challenge did not succeed before the learned Single Judge. He filed W.A. 3939 of 2001. A Division Bench of this court allowed the Writ Appeal on the ground that unless the policy is reduced into a Government order or intended to be known to the public, such a policy cannot be relied on to reject a licence. The Division Bench also directed the Excise Commissioner to decide his application for FL3 licence within a period of two weeks. In compliance with Ext. P1 judgement Ext. P2 order was issued. His application was rejected as per Ext. P2. That was based on a direction from Government. Ext. P2 as well as the direction from Government had been challenged before this court in OP 323 of 2002. It was found by this court that the Commissioner, being the statutory authority in terms of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules to consider the application for FL3 licence, could not have been circumscribed by reason of Government directives. It was also found that the contention of the Government that the petitioner had been found guilty of an abkari offence and therefore there was chance of misuse of abkari licence if granted in his favour was also not a good reason, as the conviction itself had been set aside by the Supreme Court. Accordingly by Ext. P4 judgment, quashing Exts. P2 and P3 this court directed the Commissioner of Excise to consider the matter afresh "as envisaged under Rule 13A of the Foreign Liquor Rules" based on " the report that has been received from the office of the Assistant Commissioner without seeking any extraneous help or guidance ". Accordingly by Ext. P4 judgment, quashing Exts. P2 and P3 this court directed the Commissioner of Excise to consider the matter afresh "as envisaged under Rule 13A of the Foreign Liquor Rules" based on " the report that has been received from the office of the Assistant Commissioner without seeking any extraneous help or guidance ". The direction had to be complied with within a period of two weeks from the date of judgment; namely 31.1.2002. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that inspite of communication of the judgment in time, it has not been complied with within the time limit made mention of in Ext. P4. The Commissioner asked for extension of time. Thereafter Ext. P5 notification was issued on 20.2.2002 and relying on that notification his application was rejected by Ext. P6 dated 4.3.2002. It is in the above circumstances Exts. P5 and P6 are challenged. 3. The executive authority could issue certain subordinate legislation retrospectively only if there is delegation granted by the Plenary legislation to issue such subordinate legislation retrospectively. Sec. 29 of the Abkari Act does not confer any such power. So there may not be much difficulty in accepting the contention of the petitioner that retrospectivity given to Ext. P5 is ultra vires to the parent enactment viz. the Abkari Act. But according to me that does not in any way help the petitioner to get Ext. P6 quashed, because that retrospectivity does not in any way effect the petitioner adversely. 4. The petitioner had made an application for FL3 licence as early as on 11.7.2001. But merely by reason of making an application , one does not get any right to get licence. Much less there cannot have any right to vend toddy, arrack or any kind of spirit. That shall depend upon the licence to be granted by the licencing authority depending upon several aspects including the constraints imposed by the statute. Therefore no right is accrued on the petitioner, on the date of making of an application, to get and FL3 licence. The authority empowered to grant licence to vend foreign liquor has to consider several aspects and pass orders according to the statute existing as on the date of issuance of the licence or order as the case may be. In this case the order has been issued only on 4.3.2002. As on that day Ext. The authority empowered to grant licence to vend foreign liquor has to consider several aspects and pass orders according to the statute existing as on the date of issuance of the licence or order as the case may be. In this case the order has been issued only on 4.3.2002. As on that day Ext. P5 was already there on the statute book. Ext. P5 had been issued as early as on 20.2.2002. Even without retrospectivity, it has application from that date. Necessarily retrospectivity in Ext. P5 does not in any way affect the petitioner. 5. His application had been once rejected earlier. It was quashed as per Ext. P1 by a Division Bench of this court with direction to reconsider the matter afresh. Of course again it was rejected and that was quashed by this court as per Ext. P4 judgment dt. 31.1.2002. This court did not direct grant of licence to the petitioner, while quashing the rejection of his application. On the other hand this court directed consideration based on the relevant Rules. Of course even if there were other reasons, consideration may result in rejection of the application . By the time the direction in Ext. P4 had been complied with, the relevant statute has been amended to the effect that no new licence shall be issued in terms of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. Rule 13 is the rule which envisages grant of licence. This is not a matter of renewal of licence. Had it been a matter of renewal of licence the retrospectivity might have prejudicially affected him. But this is a case for sanction of a new licence. That application has to be considered not with reference to the law on the date of application-but with reference to the law on the date of passing of order. Even if there was a direction to consider on the basis of the Rules as contained in Ext. P4 with reference to the report of the Assistant Commissioner, when the law has changed, the licensing authority cannot close its eyes to the newly introduced provisions of law which prohibits grant of licence as on the date of issuance of Ext. P6. So Ext. P6 cannot be stated to be arbitrary to invite interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. P6. So Ext. P6 cannot be stated to be arbitrary to invite interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Moreover, Abkari Act and the Rules made thereunder regulates the manufacture, storage and vending of the spirituous preparations. The Constitutional policy to be followed by the State, as envisaged in Article 47, is that "the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption , except for medical purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health". It is to effectuate this Constitutional mandate, restrictions are imposed in the grant of licence for vending foreign liquor. The present amendment brought as per Ext. P5 is to still regulate and further to restrict it, and thus not to grant any further more licences. So, Ext, P5 amendment is to fulfil the Constitutional objective to be attained by every State. When the law so made is applied, it cannot be stated that the rejection of an application for licence made on 11.7.2001, applying this new amendment brought on the statute book on 20.2.2002, is in any way unjustified. Therefore there is nothing illegal in Ext. P6 rejecting his application based on Ext. P5 amendment. 7. The legislative competence of Ext. P5 amendment is not disputed before me except to the extent of its retrospectivity. I have already considered that aspect as not relevant for this case. There is no other limb of challenge against Ext. P5. Naturally the Original petition fails. Dismissed.