Judgment :- H.L. Dattu, C.J. Toddy contractors, individual licencees of Toddy Shops, and members of Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, who are interested in securing the right to conduct the toddy shops in certain areas in the State have approached this Court, inter alia questioning the Abkari Policy of the State Government for the excise year 2007-2008, and the notifications issued by the State Government amending certain provisions of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. 2. The learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ petitions had granted an interim order of stay, staying the abkari policy of the State Government for the excise year 2007-2008 and also the order giving preference to certain Co-operative Societies in certain ranges in certain district. 3. The correctness or otherwise of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge was questioned in batch of Writ Appeals filed both by the State Government and certain other individuals before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench by its order dated 28th day of March, 2007 has stayed the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Aggrieved by the interim orders so passed, the individuals who had approached the learned Single Judge had carried the matter before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 5th April, 2007 in S.L.P.Nos.6316, 6322, 6317, 6360, etc. of 2007 has disposed of the Special Leave Petitions and further has directed this Court to hear the writ petitions and dispose of the same on merits as early as possible. The order passed by the Apex Court requires to be extracted, for the reason, that there is a observation in the order, that, if any right is created during the pendency of the appeals, the same will be subject to the result of the writ petitions. The order passed by the Apex Court is as under: “Permission to file special petition in SLP (C)… CC.No.3477/2007 is granted. Having heard learned counsel we are of the view that the impugned policy affects large number of persons in the State. The matter involves important question of public importance. In the circumstances, we request the High Court take up the matter, if possible, in the week commencing from 9th April, 2007. Having heard learned counsel we are of the view that the impugned policy affects large number of persons in the State. The matter involves important question of public importance. In the circumstances, we request the High Court take up the matter, if possible, in the week commencing from 9th April, 2007. We are informed that pleadings are also ready in the matter, if not, the State will do so and as for as the respondents are concerned, the same will be done immediately. However since the impugned orders are interim orders at this stage we do not wish to interfere. However it is made clear that the rights created, if any, during the interregnum will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Observations made in the impugned order at the interim stage shall be treated as tentative and they shall not come in the way of either parties herein at the final hearing of the writ petition. If possible, we would request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court to place the matters before the Division Bench as in our view the matter involves question of public importance.” 5. For the excise year 2007-2008, the State Government has notified its abkari policy by G.O.(Ms)No.34/07/TD dated 1st March, 2007. The policy would provide for disposal of toddy shops in groups consisting of five to seven shops by licensing system. Unsold shops will be entrusted to Co-operative Societies as well. The other important steps that is taken in the Government policy is that, while selling the toddy shops, preference will be given to those licensees who have conducted toddy shops during the preceding three years. The licensees implicated in abkari cases and subsequently exonerated by the courts will also be given preference. No individual will be considered for granting of licence, if abkari offences other than u/s.56 of the Abkari Act is registered. Another clause in the abkari policy that requires to be noticed is, that the State Government would ensure the prompt payment of government dues, welfare fund and wages of employees, as bank guarantee/solvency by way of treasury savings deposits will be insisted, except in the case of Co-operative Societies and workers committees. As the whole case of the parties to the lis revolves around the Abkari Policy of the State Government, the same requires to be extracted. As the whole case of the parties to the lis revolves around the Abkari Policy of the State Government, the same requires to be extracted. Omitting what is not necessary, the Abkari Policy of the State Government for the excise year 2007-2008 is extracted and the same is as under: “Government are pleased to announce the Abkari Policy for the year 2007-08 as detailed below: 1. Toddy shops will be disposed of in groups consisting of 5 to 7 shops by licensing system. Unsold shops will be sold in Range/Taluk wise. Toddy shops as decided by the Government, will be entrusted to Co-operative Societies as well. 2. xxxx 3. xxxx 4. xxxx 5. xxxx 6. While selling the toddy shop, preference will be given to those licensees who have conducted toddy shops during the preceding three years. The licensees implicated in Abkari case and subsequently exonerated by the courts will also be given preference. No one will be considered if Abkari offences other than under Section 56 of the Abkari Act is registered. 7. In order to ensure prompt payment of Government dues, welfare fund and wages of employees (sic) as Bank Guarantee/Solvency by way of Treasury Savings deposits will be insisted except co-operative societies and workers committees. 8. xxxx to 26. xxxx.” 6. The State Government, while giving effect to the suggestion made by the Commissioner of Excise in his letters dated 2.3.2007 and 6.3.2007 wherein he had suggested certain modification in the G.O.(MS)34/07/TD dated 1.3.2007, has passed yet another order in No.G.O.(MS)40/07/TD dated 8.3.2007 modifying the earlier Government Order dated 1.3.2007. The same is as referred as Ext.P2 in all the Writ Petitions. The same is as under: “Taxes (G) Department G.O.(MS)No.40/07/TD Dated, thiruvananthapuram 08.03.2007 Read:- 1. GO(MS)No.34/07 dated 01.03.2007 2. Letters No.XAI-28000/06 dated 02.03.2007 and 06.03.2007 of Excise Commissioner, thiruvananthapuram ORDER Government have announced new Abkari Policy for the year 2007-08 as per GO read as 1st paper above, the Commissioner of Excise in his letter read 2nd above suggested certain modifications in the above G.O. 2. Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order to modify the GO(MS)34/07/TD dated 01.03.2007 to the extent that: (i) Licensees will be given preference in respect of the sale of such groups wherein shops previously licensed to them are included. They will not get any preference in respect of any other group of shops. Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order to modify the GO(MS)34/07/TD dated 01.03.2007 to the extent that: (i) Licensees will be given preference in respect of the sale of such groups wherein shops previously licensed to them are included. They will not get any preference in respect of any other group of shops. (ii) Those licensees who could not complete three years on account of the closure of shops will be given preference. (iii) The Toddy shops in the following ranges of Kasaragod, Kannur, Kozhikode and Ernakulam Districts will be entrusted to workers Cooperative Societies. (iv) The grouping list of 999 groups of Toddy Shops comprising 5972 shops appended is also approved. (v) The Secretary (Taxes) will hear and dispose of the complaints regarding the grouping of Toddy Shops.” 7. In order to give statutory force for the Abkari Policy declared for the Excise year 2007-2008, the State Government has amended certain provisions of Kerala Abkari shops Disposal Rules, 2002 and has notified the same by issuing SRO No.222/2007 dated 13th March, 2007. These Rules are called Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal (Amendment) Rules, 2007. The amended rules are given effect to from 1st of April, 2007. In these amended rules, the definition clause in Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 is amended by inserting expressions like “applicant”, “toddy shop workers” etc. Clause (ba) in the amended rules speaks of “applicant” to mean and include, any individual or group of individuals or Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, applying for the grant of privilege of vending toddy. After clause (n) of the Rules 2002, in the amended provisions, clause (na) is introduced to define the meaning of the expression “Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers who are members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (21 of 1969). In sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, certain insertions are made. For disposal of the writ appeals, the amendments so made in Rule 3 of the Rules 2002 requires to be noticed. In sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, certain insertions are made. For disposal of the writ appeals, the amendments so made in Rule 3 of the Rules 2002 requires to be noticed. Therefore, it is extracted and it reads as under:- “(2) In rule 3, - (a) in sub-rule (1) (i) in the opening sentence, after the words “vending toddy”, the words “in any manner” shall be inserted; (ii) after the words “notified in the gazette”, the words, “excluding the shops earmarked for Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies as declared by notification” shall be inserted; (iii) after the words “in lot”, the words “or group by or range wise or taluk wise” shall be inserted; (iv) after the word, “individuals”, the words, “or group of individuals or Toddy Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society” shall be inserted; (v) after the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- “Provided also that the Government reserves the right to earmark, by notification, any number of Toddy Shop in any Range/Taluk for any period by notification to the Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society in any manner as it deems fit.” 8. In Rule 5 of the Rules 2002, sub-rules (1) and (2) are inserted by providing for sub-rules (1) and (2), which reads as under: (1) (a) While giving privilege, preference shall be given to those licensees who had conducted toddy shops during the preceding three years consecutively from 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, provided no Abkari case is registered against him other than under Section 56 of the Abkari Act. The licensees who had conducted the shops during 2002-03, 2003-04 or 2004-05 and whose licences cancelled due to registration of Abkari cases and subsequently exonerated by the Courts and those Licensees who could not complete the preceding three years on account of the closure of shops shall also be given preference. (b) The privilege is sub-rule (1) (a) above shall be confined to the group of shops in which the shops falls. (2) The Circle Inspector of Excise shall certify the eligibility of preference as required in sub-rule (1)”. 9. The explanatory note appended to the Rules has some relevance for disposal of these petitions. The same is as under: “As per G.O.(Ms)No.34/07/TD dated 1st March, 2007, and G.O.(Ms) No.40/2007/TD dated 8th March, 2007, Government have formulated the Abkari Policy for the year 2007-08. 9. The explanatory note appended to the Rules has some relevance for disposal of these petitions. The same is as under: “As per G.O.(Ms)No.34/07/TD dated 1st March, 2007, and G.O.(Ms) No.40/2007/TD dated 8th March, 2007, Government have formulated the Abkari Policy for the year 2007-08. In the said Abkari Policy, Government have decided to dispose the Toddy Shops in groups consisting of 5 to 7 toddy shops by licensing system for the year 2007-08. Government have also decided to give preference to those who have conducted Toddy Shops during the preceding three years. Government have opted for preference system in order to ensure vending of quality toddy through toddy shops. In compliance of various Court Orders it has also been decided to give preference to those licensees who had been implicated in various Abkari cases during the year 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 and subsequently exonerated by the Courts. In order to give effect to the above decisions, the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 needs to be amended suitably. The notification is intended to achieve the above object.” 10. The Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18A of the Act, has issued yet another notification, G.O.(P) No.48/2007/TD dated 13th March, 2007. In the said notification, the Government has notified that the privilege of vending toddy in the toddy shops of Neeleswaram, Hosdurg and Bandaduka Ranges in Kasaragode Division, all Excise Ranges in Kannur Division, all Excise Ranges in Kozhikode Division and Mamala, Perumbavoor and Piravom Ranges in Ernakulam Division are reserved for Toddy Tappers and Toddy Workers Co-operative Societies constituted for the purpose, with a membership of at least 51% of the toddy tappers and workers registered with Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and attached to the toddy shops in the respective Ranges/Taluks. The notification so issued reads as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred by section 18A of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 and sub-rule (1) and its first proviso of Rule 3 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, Government of Kerala hereby notify that the privilege of vending toddy in the toddy shops of Neeleswaram, Hosdurg and Bandaduka Ranges in Kasaragode Division, all Excise Ranges in Kannur Division, all Excise Ranges in Kozhikode Division and Mamala, Perumbavoor and Piravom Ranges in Ernakulam Division are reserved for Toddy Tappers and Toddy Workers Co-operative Societies constituted for the purpose, with a member Tappers and Toddy Workers Co-operative Societies constituted for the purpose, with a membership of at least 51% of the toddy tappers and workers registered with Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and attached to the toddy shops in the respective Ranges/Taluks. The period of privilege shall for a period of one year from 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008 subject to the following conditions:” The Explanatory Note appended to the said notification is as under: “In the Abkari Policy for 2007-2008 announced in G.O.(Ms.)No.34/2007/TD dated 1.3.2007 Government have declared that toddy shops as decided by the Government will be entrusted to Co-operative Societies. As per Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Abkari shops Disposal rules, 2002, Government have to notify the toddy shops earmarked to the Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies.” 11. The State Government has issued yet another notification, G.O.(P)No.59/2007/TD dated 21st March, 2007 in S.R.O.No.272/2007. By the said notification, an amendment has been brought in to Rule 5 of the Rules. The amendment has come into effect from 1.4.2007. The said notification is also relevant for the purpose of this case. It reads as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred by section 18A and 29 of the Abkari Act, 1 of 1077, the Government of Kerala hereby make the following Rules further to amend the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, issued under G.O.(P)No.24/2002.TD dated 30th March, 2002 and published as S.R.O.No.198/2002 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.376 dated the 30th March, 2002, namely:- RULES 1. Short title and commencement. – (1) These rules may be called the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal (Amendment) Rules, 2007. (2). They shall come into force from 1st April, 2007. 2. Short title and commencement. – (1) These rules may be called the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal (Amendment) Rules, 2007. (2). They shall come into force from 1st April, 2007. 2. Amendment of the Rules.- In the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, after sub-rule (1) of rule 5, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- “Provided that preference to an applicant in the sale of Toddy shops shall be limited to two groups of Toddy Shops in the whole the State.” 12. The main thrust in the new Abkari Policy of the State Government appears to be, that, the toddy shops will be disposed of in groups consisting of 5 to 7 shops by licensing system and the privilege of vending toddy will be entrusted to Cooperative Societies as well. Pursuant to the aforesaid Policy, the Government has issued another order dated 8.3.2007 and in that it is stated, that, a decision is taken that only in the Ranges of Kasaragod, Kannur, Kozhikode and Ernakulam, the shops will be entrusted to Toddy Workers Cooperative Societies and the remaining shops will be sold by auction and licence will be issued to do business in toddy, and secondly no preference will be given except to existing licencees and the preference will not be available to shops already run by them. In short, in the Policy evolved by the State Government, preference is given to Workers Cooperative Societies for grant of licence to vend in toddy only in four district, viz., All ranges in Kannur, Kozhikode and a few ranges in Ernakulam and Kasaragod Districts. In order to give statutory force to the Abkari Policy of the State Government, Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 is also amended and is given effect from 1.4.2007. 13. Petitioners assert that among the licensees who are equally situate, there cannot be invidious discrimination without any ostensible reasons for fixing up certain areas of certain district, where the shops will be entrusted only to Workers Cooperative Societies and it is, therefore, not clear why only three Ranges in Kasaragod, all the Ranges in Kannur and Kozhikode and three Ranges in Ernakulam district are shown for exclusively being granted to the Workers Cooperative Societies and, therefore, the Policy of the State Government is clearly violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. 14. Petitioners further assert that, while it is true that the Government can evolve a Policy for issue of licence or privilege of vending toddy in the State, the Policy should conform to the equality clauses of the Constitution. It is further stated that in the event of grant of State largesse, the State cannot discriminate between citizens. It is further stated, if the State decides that Workers Cooperative Societies also can be permitted to run toddy shops, there is no reason for confining only to some Ranges alone in some districts. The Government, therefore, is arbitrarily fixing some Ranges for being earmarked to Workers Cooperative Societies, which is not supported by any reason, logic or sense and if the Policy was to provide infrastructural facility and improve the prospects of Toddy Workers Cooperative Societies, it must be applied alike in all districts and not in some Ranges alone. Preference cannot be given and if the Policy is implemented, it must be implemented alike as the entire State is one unit. 15. It is further stated that the petitioners do not suffer from any disqualification whatsoever to continue to bid as in the previous years in the auction that was held in the year 2007 and they are now prevented to bid in those auctions, as those Ranges are included in the orders passed by the State Government exclusively earmarking for the Workers Cooperative Societies and this action of the State Government amounts to invidious discrimination, arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the Executive Policy notified by the State Government is patently violative of equality clauses and will infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and the right to make livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. The petitioners would further assert that as per the Abkari Policy, the vending of toddy will be entrusted to certain Cooperative Societies in certain districts. It is not provided in the Policy as to how and in what manner the toddy shops will be identified for the purpose of entrusting the same to Cooperative Societies. Even when the sale of liquor is the privilege of the State, arbitrary exercise of that power resulting in discrimination will result in entitling a person to seek judicial review of the State action for interference as enunciated by the Apex Court in Khoday’s case. 17. Even when the sale of liquor is the privilege of the State, arbitrary exercise of that power resulting in discrimination will result in entitling a person to seek judicial review of the State action for interference as enunciated by the Apex Court in Khoday’s case. 17. Petitioners further state, that, in the Policy of the State Government, it is provided that in order to ensure prompt payment of government dues, welfare fund and wages of employees, sufficient bank guarantee/solvency by way of treasury savings deposit will be insisted except in the case of Cooperative Societies and Workers Committee. According to the petitioners, when the licence is issued under a Policy by making appropriate amendment to the Rules, there is no justification in adopting different standards as among the licensees, since the licensees are required to be treated alike. Therefore, it is contended that the Policy as announced by giving exemption to Cooperative Societies and Workers Committees from providing bank guarantees or treasury savings deposit in order to ensure prompt payment of government dues, welfare fund and wages of employees is, on the face of it, discriminatory and against the interest of the workers. The petitioners further contend that the Policy of the State Government is capricious, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to the statutory provisions and not informed by reasons and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed by the court. It is further stated that under the Policy uncanalised and unguided power has been given to the State Government for entrustment of shops for sale of toddy for the Excise year 2007-08 and the same has resulted in arbitrariness. It also permits selection of Societies by the party in power according to their whims and fancies depending upon the political combination and equations of the locality. As such, the unguided power given in the Policy is illegal and against the interest of the public as well. 18. It is the contention of the petitioners that the rules which have been brought into force by amending the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions. As such, the unguided power given in the Policy is illegal and against the interest of the public as well. 18. It is the contention of the petitioners that the rules which have been brought into force by amending the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions. In aid of that statement, it is stated that as per Rule 2 (na) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, Toddy Shops Workers and Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society means a society formed at range level/taluk level by toddy shop workers and toddy tappers who are members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. As such, the nature of the society and the membership in the society as per Rule 2(na) is only Toddy Shops Workers and Toddy Tappers who are members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board. The State Government while issuing the notification pursuant to the amended rules, has insisted that the composition of the society, for the purpose of granting the privilege of vending toddy in the toddy shops reserved for Cooperative Societies, the membership in the society for the Toddy Shops Workers and Toddy Tappers should have atleast 51% of the toddy tappers and workers registered with the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and attached to the different shops in the respective ranges-taluks. Therefore, it is stated that the notification issued pursuant to the amended provisions is contrary to Rule 2(na) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules. 19. Petitioners further state, with the amendment introduced to Rule 2(na) of the Rules, the right to vend toddy is specifically reserved to societies which are already registered in the ranges/taluks. Under Section 7(i)(c) of Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, there can only be on society of the same and similar nature within the area of operation of a particular form of society. Therefore, the amendment to Rule 2(na) and the notification issued pursuant thereto are only a grant in favour of those societies, which are already registered. Therefore, there is no sale of toddy shops as contemplated under the Rules. On the other hand, it is a grant in favour of the existing societies by the government without providing an opportunity for any other society to stake its claim at the time of sale. Therefore, there is no sale of toddy shops as contemplated under the Rules. On the other hand, it is a grant in favour of the existing societies by the government without providing an opportunity for any other society to stake its claim at the time of sale. As such, the reservation in favour of the societies is a grant to a particular society which is already working and, therefore, it cannot be termed as sale when it is, in reality, a grant by the State. Therefore, the rule defining the nature of the society and the notification issued pursuant thereto are illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that the proviso added to Rule 3 of the Abkari Rules enabling the government to reserve the right to earmark any number of toddy shops in any taluk-range for any period by notification to the toddy shops workers and toddy tappers cooperative society, in any manner, as they deem it fit, has provided unguided and unbridled powers to the State Government to notify toddy shops discriminating others from getting the licence to do business in toddy. Therefore, there is no justification in giving such unbridled powers to the State Government to reserve and earmark certain cooperative societies for the purpose of providing the privilege to vend in toddy. 20. The State Government, in justification of its new Abkari Policy and also the amended provisions, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In that it is stated that the decision of the Government to entrust certain ranges in a particular district and also certain districts in the State for vending of toddy by Toddy Workers Welfare Cooperative Societies is well founded. The ranges covered under the Policy had made a good profit when they were entrusted with the business of toddy during the Abkari year 2001-02. According to them, the privilege so granted to those societies is based on the statistics that the government has collected when those Societies were entrusted with vending of toddy during the excise year 2001-02. In short, they would assert that since the societies who had made profits when they were entrusted with vending of toddy during the Excise year 2001-02, they are chosen for a special privilege of vending toddy during the Abkari year 2007-08. 21. In short, they would assert that since the societies who had made profits when they were entrusted with vending of toddy during the Excise year 2001-02, they are chosen for a special privilege of vending toddy during the Abkari year 2007-08. 21. It is further that the Government had entrusted the business of toddy to the cooperative societies during the Excise year 2001-02 and the Policy of the government was questioned before this Court by filing O.P.No.10050 of 2001 and connected matters and the Policy of the State Government has been upheld by this Court and the said decision has become final, in the sense, the individuals who had questioned the Policy of the State Government had not carried the matter further before any other superior forum. Therefore, it is stated that the Policy decision of the State does not suffer from any infirmity and there is no discrimination as alleged by the petitioners. 22. It is further contended that on the basis of the recommendations of the Udayabhanu Commission, the government had entrusted the toddy shops to the Toddy Tappers and Workers Cooperative Societies during the Excise year 2001-02. Subsequently, the Policy is changed by entrusting the vending of toddy to the individuals. Now the government has again decided to entrust the toddy shops of selected ranges to societies where the societies had functioned property and profitably during the Excise year 2001-02. The Policy decision so taken, is in the best interests of the Workers and also will ensure the sale of quality toddy through toddy shops as recommended by the Udayabhanu Commission. It is further stated that, in the Policy it is made clear that, the entrustment of vending of toddy to the selected cooperative societies which should have at least 51% of the workers in a range as members will ensure that the majority of the workers will have a say in the running of the shops. They would further contend that during 2001-02 government have entrusted all the toddy shops in the State to the Cooperative Societies. From that experience, in the interest of the toddy tappers and workers, again, the government has decided to entrust the toddy shops of certain ranges in the State with the Cooperative Societies formed by the toddy tappers and workers in the sector. It is the policy of the government to ensure supply of quality toddy through toddy shops. From that experience, in the interest of the toddy tappers and workers, again, the government has decided to entrust the toddy shops of certain ranges in the State with the Cooperative Societies formed by the toddy tappers and workers in the sector. It is the policy of the government to ensure supply of quality toddy through toddy shops. It is also the policy of the government to ensure the welfare of the workers in the traditional sector. In the ranges earmarked for the cooperative societies during this year the cooperative societies which conducted the toddy shops during 2001-02 have conducted the shops in proper manner. They have remitted the welfare fund contribution, the wages and all other benefits of the employees. The above societies have conducted the shops without any malpractice. It is stated that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the provision contained in clause 7 of the Abkari Policy is without any basis and as such liable to the rejected. 23. It is their further contention that the decision taken by the government to exempt the societies from furnishing bank guarantees/deposit as security is intended to help the workers who are engaged in the traditional toddy sector. In fact, during the Abkari year 2001-02 when the right to vend toddy was given exclusively to cooperative societies, such a provision making it obligatory on the part of the societies to furnish bank guarantee was not there. The argument of the petitioner that the policy of entrusting toddy shops with the Workers Cooperative Societies is against the concept of employer-employee relationship is incorrect. The employees are conducting the toddy shops and they are getting the benefits and profit of the business. 24. In the counter affidavit filed they would further state, that the government has acted only within the limits allowed by the Constitution of India while framing the Abkari Policy. The decision has been taken by the government only in the best interests of the state. During 2001-02 government had entrusted all the toddy shops in the State to the cooperative societies. From that experience, taking into consideration the interest of the toddy tappers and workers, again the government has decided to entrust the toddy shops of certain ranges in the State with the cooperative societies formed by the toddy and workers in the sector. 25. During 2001-02 government had entrusted all the toddy shops in the State to the cooperative societies. From that experience, taking into consideration the interest of the toddy tappers and workers, again the government has decided to entrust the toddy shops of certain ranges in the State with the cooperative societies formed by the toddy and workers in the sector. 25. It is also stated, that, as per Rule 2(na) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disporal Rules, 2002, toddy shops workers and toddy tappers cooperative society means a society formed at range level/taluk level by toddy shop workers and toddy tappers who are members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board. As per the notification, government has decided to entrust privilege of vending toddy in the toddy shops of Neeleshwaram, Hosdurg and Bandaduka ranges in Kasaragod division, all excise ranges in Kozhikode and Kannur divisions and Mamala, Perumbvoor and Piravom ranges in Ernakulam division to the toddy tappers and toddy workers cooperative societies constituted for the purpose, with a membership of atleast 51% of the toddy tappers and workers registered in Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and attached to the toddy shops in respective ranges/taluks. This does not mean that, persons other than toddy tappers or workers will be made members of the society. Only the toddy tappers and toddy shop workers registered with the Toddy Welfare Fund Board will be allowed to be the members of the society. But 51% of toddy tappers and workers should be attached to toddy shops in the respective ranges/taluks. This condition is insisted for ensuring majority participation of workers in the conduct of toddy shops. The notification is not contrary to Rule 2(na) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002. Rule 2(na) of the said rules define the term ‘cooperative society’. In the notification the majority participation of the workers in the toddy shop is guaranteed. It does not run contrary to Rule 2(na) of the said Rules. The existing cooperative society formed with atleast 51% of registered workers and tappers in the respective range/taluk can apply for the grant of privilege of toddy shops. In a range/taluk, no two society can apply for the privilege, as atleast 51% of the registered workers is contemplated as members for the society. The policy of the government is to entrust the toddy shops to the cooperative societies, which have majority participation of workers. In a range/taluk, no two society can apply for the privilege, as atleast 51% of the registered workers is contemplated as members for the society. The policy of the government is to entrust the toddy shops to the cooperative societies, which have majority participation of workers. Therefore, the notification and Rule 2(na) are not arbitrary or illegal. 26. It is the policy of the government to entrust the toddy shops to the cooperative societies formed by the tappers and workers who have registered with the Welfare Fund Board, as recommended by the Udayabhanu Commission. The Government has decided to introduce the scheme in a phased manner. Therefore, toddy shops in certain ranges notified had been earmarked to the cooperative societies. It is the policy decision of the Government and the decision will not discriminate others. As there is no entitlement to any one to get the licence of toddy shops, citizens have no fundamental right to trade in liquor and, therefore, the proviso to rule is not arbitrary or illegal. The policy of the Government to entrust the toddy shops with the cooperative societies formed by the tappers and workers who have registered with the Welfare Fund Board is on the basis of recommendation by the Udayabhanu Commission. It is for implementing the decision of the government, necessary amendments have been incorporated in the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 and it is not opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. The Government has decided to entrust the toddy shops of certain ranges to the cooperative societies for the benefit of workers and in the best interest of the toddy sector. The wages and the welfare fund contribution due for the period 2001-02 had been paid by the cooperative societies to whom toddy shops are allotted for the current year. It is further stated that Section 18A empowers the government for the grant of exclusive privilege of manufacture/sale etc. of liquor on payment of rental on such condition and for such period as they deem fit. It is the policy of the Government to entrust toddy shops to the cooperative societies and government has the right to formulate its policy and unless such policy is violative of statutory provision or fundamental right, it is not liable to be interfered with. 27. It is the policy of the Government to entrust toddy shops to the cooperative societies and government has the right to formulate its policy and unless such policy is violative of statutory provision or fundamental right, it is not liable to be interfered with. 27. The case of the petitioners that by giving right to vend toddy to cooperative societies of Kannur and Kozhikode exclusively and three ranges in Kasaragod and Ernakulam divisions, the State had discriminated the societies in other district will not hold good for the reason that the government can introduce a policy in a phased manner. It is not necessary that a policy decision should be made applicable throughout the State at one stroke. Further, Writ Petition is not filed by the cooperative society but by an individual questioning the policy of entrusting the privilege of vending toddy exclusively to the cooperative societies in a district. It cannot be stated that an individual is affected by the policy decision of the government to entrust the vending of toddy to the cooperative societies in those districts referred to above. An individual cannot say that he has been discriminated against by the present Abkari Policy of the State. That apart, cooperative societies are registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and members of those Societies are members of the Welfare Fund Board. Registered members of the Toddy Welfare Fund Board are also members of the scheme framed under the provisions of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act and those societies will have to register themselves with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. On registration, the Excise Officers and Co-operative Department will have more effective control over them, as a result of which better toddy can be supplied. By virtue of the present policy, the Government is committed to provide quality toddy through toddy shops by encouraging Cooperative Societies in toddy sector. 28. The challenge made against the government policy in exempting co-operative society from furnishing bank guarantee cannot be questioned as it is done for the purpose of encouraging cooperative sector. When the cooperative sector is encouraged, government will have more effective control in the functioning of toddy shops at the grass root level. It is done for ensuring that better quality toddy is served to the customers. 29. When the cooperative sector is encouraged, government will have more effective control in the functioning of toddy shops at the grass root level. It is done for ensuring that better quality toddy is served to the customers. 29. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the challenge made against clause 6 of GO (MS) No.34/07/TD with regard to the preference given to the licensees who have conducted toddy shops during 3 years has no merit. In fact, this clause is introduced by the government in the interest of the public health, safety and to protect the employees of the shops. Further, experience is insisted upon to see that better quality toddy is served. The question whether experience can be insisted upon by the government while formulating a policy was also considered by the Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Government of NCT (2006 (3) KLT 601) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that there is nothing wrong in government insisting for three years experience and refused to interfere with the decision. 30. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, it is stated that the decision to entrust sale of toddy with Workers Cooperative Societies is the byproduct of mala fides and entrustment of the toddy shops with the cooperative societies is only on account of political considerations in view of the fact, societies registered in the area covered in Ext.P2 are societies registered with the workers of the party in power. When there is an existing society in an area, there cannot be another society of the same nature. Therefore, while deciding the grant of licence in the areas specified in Ext.P2, it was the decision of granting the licence in favour of the societies, which were formed earlier. The concept of grant of licence by the process of auction also had lost its significance when the decision was taken by the Government to grant licence in favour of societies in Ext.P4. It is stated that the government’s stand that the privilege for vending toddy was granted to societies which had no arrears in respect of welfare fund contribution and wages also is not correct since there are large number of societies which have failed in contributing towards the welfare fund while the same of toddy was entrusted with them during the Excise year 2001-02. According to the petitioners, the claim with regard to profit made by the societies to which licence is presently given also is wrong. In Kannur district, the audit in respect of those societies in whose favour licence had been granted during 2001-02 is incomplete. From the statements given by the societies, it can be seen that none of the societies had made profit during the year 2001-02 while the sale was entrusted with them. It is further alleged that there was misappropriation of money by party workers who were in command of the society and the said amount had never reached the hands of the workers. Petitioners’ submission is that the claim made by the government that the decision was to entrust the management of societies which made profit is not true and, therefore, the proclaimed policy of the government is a colourable exercise of power by the party in power for the benefit of party workers. 31. Sri. Ramakumar, learned counsel for some of the writ petitioners would contend that the Government has evolved new Abkari Policy for the excise year 2007-2008 giving preference to Co-operative Societies exclusively in some of the District in the State and in some ranges/Taluks in certain Districts without disclosing any reasons. The State has the right and power to prefer Co-operative Societies to grant the privilege of vending toddy to Co-operative Societies, but that cannot be done in a few Districts in the State and a few ranges/Taluks in certain District. Therefore, picking a few District and few ranges in a District is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 32. The learned counsel then would contend that between the licensees who are equally situate, there cannot be any invidious discrimination without any ostensible reason for fixing up certain areas of certain workers, where the shops will be entrusted only to Workers Co-operative Societies, when there are several workers co-operative societies throughout the State. It is therefore, not clear why only three ranges in Kasaragod and all the ranges in Kannur and Kozhikode and three ranges in Ernakulam District are shown for exclusively being granted to Workers Co-operative Societies. Therefore, the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 33. It is therefore, not clear why only three ranges in Kasaragod and all the ranges in Kannur and Kozhikode and three ranges in Ernakulam District are shown for exclusively being granted to Workers Co-operative Societies. Therefore, the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 33. It is further contended that the petitioners who are citizens of the State and were licensees for more than 35 years are now prevented from participating in the Excise auction and therefore, the action of the State Government is patently unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Abkari Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 34. It is further argued by Sri. Ramakumar that, while it is true that the Government can evolve a policy for issuance of licence or privilege of vending toddy in the State of Kerala, such Policy or rules should conform to the equality clauses of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that even in the event of granting largesse of the State, the State cannot discriminate one citizen and the other, if the State decides that the Workers Co-operative Societies also can be permitted to run toddy shops, there is no reason why it should be confined only to some ranges alone in some Districts. Therefore, the action of the State Government is not supported by any reason or logic. 35. The learned counsel would further contend that if the Policy of the State Government is to provide infrastructural facilities and improve the prospects of Toddy Workers Co-operative Societies, it must be applied alike in all Districts and preference cannot be given in some ranges alone. If the Policy is to be implemented, it must be implemented alike as the entire State is one unit. Therefore, the policy of the State Government is violative of equality clauses of the Constitution and would infringe the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the right to make livelihood guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution. The learned counsel would further contend that the Policy issued by the State Government is with a mala fide intention and with a sole object of giving licences to some loyalists of the party in power. The reason is purely political and the same, it is submitted is altogether irrelevant consideration in the formation of Abkari Policy, since it would affect the existing licensees. The reason is purely political and the same, it is submitted is altogether irrelevant consideration in the formation of Abkari Policy, since it would affect the existing licensees. In aid of his submission, learned counsel relies on certain observations made by Apex Court in the case of Aashirwad Films vs. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 624), Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Weflare Assn. Vs. Central Valuation Board and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 668), Y. Srinivasa Rao vs. J. Veeraiah and others, (AIR 1993 SC 929), Sriniketan Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. Vikas Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others, (AIR 1989 SC 1673), Common Cause, A registered Society vs. Union of India and others, (AIR 1996 SC 3538), Angarki Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (AIR 1997 SC 764). 36. Mr. Kurian George, learned Senior Counsel would submit that by the impugned policy of the State Government, the licensees who were in business for decades have now been ousted from business and the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. The learned counsel would further submit that the policy of the State Government introduces a system of grouping of shops for the purpose of licensing and the preference will be given to those people who were running the shops in the present group. Therefore, a person who was a licensee of a shop is now included in a particular group will not get an opportunity to be a licensee of any other shop in any other area or another group. It is further contended that in view of Section 7 of the Co-operative Societies Act, there can be only one Co-operative Society doing a particular nature of business and therefore, there cannot be one more Co-operative Society doing a similar business. Therefore, the State Government while making the impugned policy had already determined which are the Co-operative Societies, which should be granted privilege of vending toddy in the ranges/Taluks of a particular District. This action of the State Government is mala fide exercise of power by the State Government. In aid of his submission, the learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1995) 1 SCC 574). 37. Sri. This action of the State Government is mala fide exercise of power by the State Government. In aid of his submission, the learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1995) 1 SCC 574). 37. Sri. George Poonthottam, while adopting the submissions made by other counsels would contend, that the amended Abkari Rules is given effect from 1.4.2007 and even before that the State had earmarked the Toddy Workers Co-operative Societies for grant of privilege of vending toddy, and therefore, this action of the State Government is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the then existing rules prior to its amendment. Elaborating this contention, the learned counsel would submit that the State Government by issuing notification dt.13.3.2007 had reserved Toddy Workers Co-operative Societies in certain District and certain Ranges of a few Districts in the State, but Abkari Rules were amended only with effect from 1.4.2007 and that only means, on the day when the notification was issued, the State Government was incompetent to reserve business of toddy vending only to Workers co-operative Society. 38. Mr. K.A. Balan, learned counsel who appears for the petitioner in W.P.(c).No.9165 of 2007, would contend that the Rules framed by the State Government is contrary to Section 56 of the Abkari Act and therefore, they are invalid. Sri Vasudevan and Smt. C. Krishnakumari, learned counsel would adopt the submissions made by the other counsels. 39. Per Contra, the learned Advocate General contended that the petitioners do not have a fundamental right to trade in liquor. The State having adopted a policy decision, this Court should not exercise the powers of Judicial Review interfering therewith. In any case, that the policy decision does not suffer from any illegality. While elaborating the points raised, the learned Advocate General would contend that in the matter relating to grant of licence for dealing in liquor is within the exclusive domain of the State and if the State had the right to adopt a policy decision, they have the right to amend the same. While elaborating the points raised, the learned Advocate General would contend that in the matter relating to grant of licence for dealing in liquor is within the exclusive domain of the State and if the State had the right to adopt a policy decision, they have the right to amend the same. The effect of the policy decision taken by the State is to be considered, having regard to the provisions contained in Article 47 of the Constitution of India and also its power or regulation and control in respect of the trade in terms of the provisions of the Abkari Act. 40. The leaned Advocate General would submit that during the Excise year 2001-02, the Co-operative Societies functioned properly in all the Ranges in Kannur and Kozhikode Districts, Hosdurg and Neeleswaram in Kasaragode District, and in Mamala, Perumbavoor and Piravam Ranges in Ernakulam Districts and therefore in those ranges where toddy shops functioned properly and profitably under Co-operative Societies, Government decided to earmark the toddy shops to Societies for ensuring proper functioning of the toddy shops in the interest of the workers engaged in the traditional sector. Therefore, there is no discrimination in granting the privilege of toddy shops in the ranges above mentioned to the Co-operative Societies. Alternatively, it is contended that the decision of the State Government to entrust certain ranges covered under the notification to Co-operative Societies which had made good profit when they were entrusted with the business of toddy during the abkari year 2001-02 and even before doing so, the State Government had collected the necessary statistics from the various departments including the Excise authorities, and therefore, the decision of the State Government cannot be said as either arbitrary or whimsical and in fact the decision of the Government to entrust certain Ranges covered by Ext.P2 to Co-operative Societies is well founded and therefore, the policy decision of the State Government cannot be characterized as either arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of any Constitutional provision. 41. The learned Advocate General would submit that the intention of the State Government is to implement the policy of granting privilege to the Workers Co-operative Societies in a phased manner and the same is permissible in law. 41. The learned Advocate General would submit that the intention of the State Government is to implement the policy of granting privilege to the Workers Co-operative Societies in a phased manner and the same is permissible in law. Lastly, it is contended that all the petitioners before this Court are individuals and they are trying to espouse their individual grievances and not that of any Co-operative Society in the State and since the individuals or any other persons has no fundamental right to do business in vending of toddy in the State, this Court should not interfere with the policy decision of the State Government. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate General has relied on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566), Javed and Others vs. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369), Eka Shakti foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 3 KLT 601 (SC) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, (AIR 1984 SC 1543), Kuldeep Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 5 SCC 702), Krishnan Kakkanth vs. Government of Kerala (1997) 9 SCC 495), P.T.R. Exports (Madras) P. Ltd. vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 268 = AIR 1996 SC 3461], Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333), Union of India vs. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta and Kannadigara (2002) 10 SCC 226), Federation of Railway Officers Assn. Vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289), Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) vs. State of A.P. (2006) 4 SCC 162), State of Punjab and others vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others, (1998) 4 SCC 117), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash (AIR 2006 SC 651), M.P. Oil Extraction vs. State of M.P. (1997) 7 SCC 592), Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Qimat Rai Gupta, (2007) 7 SCC 309). 42. The power of the State to control and regulate the trade in liquor is envisaged under Entry 8, List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The State alone has the exclusive right and privilege to deal in country/foreign liquor. The trade in country and foreign liquor is said to be res res extra commercium. A citizen does not have any fundamental right to deal therewith. 43. The trade in country/foreign liquor is governed by the provisions of the Abkari Act. The State alone has the exclusive right and privilege to deal in country/foreign liquor. The trade in country and foreign liquor is said to be res res extra commercium. A citizen does not have any fundamental right to deal therewith. 43. The trade in country/foreign liquor is governed by the provisions of the Abkari Act. The Abkari Act was enacted by the Maharaja of Cochin in the year 1902. It is applicable to the entire State of Kerala. The provisions of the said Act seeks to control and regulate various categories of intoxicating liquor and intoxicating drugs including arrack, toddy, Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), country liquor and other types of foreign liquor. 44. The matters relating to grant of licence for dealing in liquor is within the exclusive domain of the State Government. The State has the right to adopt a policy decision to deal in liquor. They have a right also to amend the policy decision. The effect of a policy decision taken by the State is to be considered having regard to the provisions contained in Article 47 of the Constitution as also its power of regulation and control in respect of the trade in terms of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Although, dealing in liquor, as has rightly been submitted by learned Advocate General, is not a fundamental right, but indisputably, the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India would apply. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566), the Apex Court has observed that “no one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But, when the State decides to grant such a right or privilege to others, the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574), has observed that when the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitations, if any, the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. The Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574), has observed that when the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitations, if any, the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. In Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 4 SCC 327), the Apex Court has observed that it is not in dispute that Article 14 of the Constitution would be attracted even in the matter of trade in liquor. 45. The issue which requires to be kept in our view, while deciding the lis between the parties is, whether the action of the State is fair and reasonable; whether the discretion conferred upon the State, has been exercised whimsically or capriciously; whether the change in the policy decision is valid in law; and whether the Rules which are amended to give statutory force to the Policy decision of the State Government is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 46. We may now refer to the fact situation pleaded and the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties. 47. During the Abkari Year 2001-2002, the State Government after dispensing with the system of auctioning of toddy shops had entrusted the exclusive privilege of vending toddy to Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies throughout the State. This policy of the State Government had been questioned by certain individuals who were desirous of obtaining licence under the Abkari Act to deal in toddy etc. this Court after detailed discussion of various aspects of the matter was pleased to uphold the policy of the State Government. 48. Subsequently, this policy was abandoned/discontinued for several years and now the Government has introduced the new policy giving licences to the individuals who has previous experience in the trade and secondly to some of the Co-operative Societies in two District and some of the Ranges/Taluks in two District. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no basis or reason or rationale in selecting certain Districts and certain Ranges only for granting privilege to Workers Co-operative Societies and therefore, the action of the State Government is arbitrary and discriminatory. This argument would not impress us. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no basis or reason or rationale in selecting certain Districts and certain Ranges only for granting privilege to Workers Co-operative Societies and therefore, the action of the State Government is arbitrary and discriminatory. This argument would not impress us. It has come on record that during the Excise year 2001-02, the State Government had introduced an Excise Policy by granting privilege of vending toddy throughout the State to Co-operative Sector and the Societies now earmarked had performed well and had made considerable profit in the business and also had honoured their statutory commitment. It is by taking this into account, the Government has granted privilege of vending toddy to Workers Co-operative Societies in some of the Districts in the State and in some Ranges/Taluks in some Districts. The scope of judicial interference in a policy decision of the Government is very much limited. The law in this issue is now well explained by the Apex Court and the same is brought to our notice by the learned Advocate General while defending the policy decision of the State Government. We will now refer to some of the decisions on which reliance was placed by learned Advocate General. 49. In State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566), wherein the Apex Court has observed thus: “34. But, while considering the applicability of Article 14 in such a case, we must bear in mind that, having regard to the nature of the trade or business, the Court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State Government for grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor. The Court would, in view of the inherently pernicious nature of the commodity allow a large measure of latitude to the State Government in determining its policy of regulating, manufacture and trade in liquor. Moreover, the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy where the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the State Government has done, unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. We had occasion to consider the scope of interference by the Court under Article 14 while dealing with laws relating to economic activities in R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675). We had occasion to consider the scope of interference by the Court under Article 14 while dealing with laws relating to economic activities in R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675). We pointed out in that case that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. we observed that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the legislature. We quoted with approved the following admonition given by Frankfurther, J. in Morey v, Dond, 354 US 457. In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reason for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. When these are added to the complexity of economic regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the experts, and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events – self-limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability. What we said in that case in regard to legislation relating to economic matters must apply equally in regard to the executive action in the field of economic activities, though the executive decision may not be placed on as high a pedestal as legislative judgment, insofar as judicial deference is concerned. We must not forget that in complex economic matters, every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call ‘trial and error method’ and, therefore, its validity cannot e tested on any rigid ‘a priori’ considerations or on the application of any strait-jacket formula. The Court must while adjudging the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or ‘play in the joints’ to the executive. “The problem of government” as pointed out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Metropolis Theatre Co. The Court must while adjudging the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or ‘play in the joints’ to the executive. “The problem of government” as pointed out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Metropolis Theatre Co. v. State of Chicago, 57 L.Ed 730. Are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticisms should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercise, which can be declared void. The Government, as was said in Permian Basin Area Rates cases, 20 L.Ed (2d) 312, is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. It is against the background of these observations and keeping them in mind that we must proceed to deal with the contention of the petitioners based on Article 14 of the Constitution.” 50. In Eka Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 3 KLT 601 (SC), the Apex Court has observed as follows:- “11. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. (See Ashif Hamid v. State of J & K, (AIR 1989 SC 1899), Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1277). The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1277). The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere. 12. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 13. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown, Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.” 51. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, (AIR 1984 SC 1543), the Supreme court has observed as follows: “16. In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But, any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. But, any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconstant with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” 52. However, in our view, it cannot be said that the policy decision of the State Government under any circumstance cannot be interfered by this Court. Now the law on this point is explained by the Apex Court in Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 4 SCC 327). In the said decision, it has been observed as follows: “30. In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434), this Court has stated the law in the following terms (SCC p.488 para 104) “104. A policy decision, as is well known, should not be lightly interfered with but it is difficult to accept the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the courts cannot exercise their power of judicial review at all. By reason of any legislation, whether enacted by the legislature or by way of subordinate legislation, the State gives effect to its legislative policy. Such legislation, however, must not be ultra vires the Constitution. A subordinate legislation apart from being intra vires the Constitution, should not also be ultra vires the parent Act under which it has been made. A subordinate legislation, it is trite, must be reasonable and in consonance with the legislative policy as also give effect to the purport and object of the Act and good faith.” 31. In Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. A subordinate legislation, it is trite, must be reasonable and in consonance with the legislative policy as also give effect to the purport and object of the Act and good faith.” 31. In Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. It is stated at pp.297-298: “the initial difference between subordinate legislation (of the kind dealt with in this chapter) and statute law lies in the fact that a subordinate law making body is bound by the terms of its delegated or derived authority, and that courts of law, as a general rule, will not vive effect to the rules etc., thus made, unless satisfied that all the conditions precedent to the validity of the rules have been fulfilled. The validity of statutes cannot be canvassed by the courts, the validity of delegated legislation as a general rule can be. The courts therefore (1) will require due proof that the rules have been made and promulgated in accordance with the statutory authority, unless the statute directs them to be judicially noticed; (2) in the absence of express statutory provision to the contrary, may inquire whether the rule-making power has been exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute by which it is created, either with respect to the procedure adopted, the form or substance of the regulation, or the sanction, if any attached to the regulation; and it follows that the court may reject as invalid and ultra vires a regulation which fails to comply with the statutory essentials.” 32. In G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 10th Edn. It is stated at p.916: “Grounds of judicial review: Delegated legislation is open to the scrutiny of courts and may be declared invalid particularly on two grounds: (a) Violation of the Constitution; and (b) Violation of the enabling Act. The second ground includes within itself not only cases of violation of substantive provisions of the enabling Act, but also cases of violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed. It may also be challenged on the ground that it cannot be said to be in conformity with the statute or Article 14 of the Constitution or that it has been exercised in bad faith. The limitations which apply to the exercise of administrative or quasi judicial power conferred by a statute except the requirement of natural justice also apply to the exercise of power of delegated legislation. The limitations which apply to the exercise of administrative or quasi judicial power conferred by a statute except the requirement of natural justice also apply to the exercise of power of delegated legislation. Rules made under the Constitution do not qualify as legislation in true sense and are treated as subordinate legislation and can be challenged in judicial review like delegated legislation. Compliance with the laying requirement or even approval by a resolution of Parliament does not confer any immunity to the delegated legislation but it may be a circumstance to be taken into account along with other factors to uphold its validity although as earlier seen a laying clause may prevent the enabling Act being declared invalid for excessive delegation.” 33. In Clariant International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, (2004) 8 SCC 524), this Court observed (SCC p.547, para 63) “63. When any criterion is fixed by a statute or by a policy, an attempt should be made by the authority making the delegated legislation to follow the policy formulation broadly and substantially and in conformity therewith See Secy., Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Govt. of India v. Cipla Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 1, at para 4.1) 34. We may notice that in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, it was pointed out: SCC p.103, para 66) “66. The contention raised to the effect that this Court would not interfere with the policy decision is again devoid of any merit. A legislative policy must conform to the provisions of the constitutional mandates. Even otherwise a policy decision can be subjected to judicial review.” 53. Under Section 18A of the Abkari Act, the Government is empowered to grant to any person or persons exclusive privilege of vending toddy on such conditions and for such period as it deems fit for manufacturing or supplying by wholesale or selling by retail, any liquor or intoxicating drugs within any local area on his or their payment to the Government of an amount as rental in consideration of the grant of such privilege. The amount of rental may be settled by auction, negotiation or by any other method as may be determined by the Government from time to time. 54. Section 29 of the Act authorizes the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. 55. The amount of rental may be settled by auction, negotiation or by any other method as may be determined by the Government from time to time. 54. Section 29 of the Act authorizes the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. 55. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 18A and 29 of the Abkari Act has framed the rules known as ‘The Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002’. Rule 2(1) of the Rules authorizes the State Government to grant the privilege of vending toddy for any period in any of the independent shops, within the Range or Taluk as may be notified in the Gazette. Chapter IV of the Rules provides the General Conditions applicable to sale of toddy shops. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for conditions for grant of privilege of vending Toddy Shops, one such condition is, while giving privilege, preference shall be given to those applicants who had three years experience in any particular year between 1996 to 2001. 56. Under Section 18A of the Abkari Act, the legislature has authorised the Government to grant any person or persons the exclusive privilege of selling in retail any liquor or intoxicating drugs within any local area on such conditions and for such period as may deem fit and Section 29 of the Act authorizes the State Government to frame rules for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the legislature has authorized the State Government to grant any person or persons exclusive privilege of selling in retail any liquor or intoxicating drug. In view of the specific provision provided under the Act, the State Government can formulate a policy for granting privilege to vend in toddy to any person. During the excise year 2001-2002, the State Government had formulated a policy entrusting the exclusive privilege of vending to the Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies after dispensing with the system of auctioning of toddy shops. The policy of the State Government was upheld by this Court. During the excise year 2001-2002, the State Government had formulated a policy entrusting the exclusive privilege of vending to the Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies after dispensing with the system of auctioning of toddy shops. The policy of the State Government was upheld by this Court. As we have already noticed, this system was abandoned during the subsequent years and it is now for the excise year 2007-2008, the State has re-introduced the excise policy by entrusting the exclusive privilege of vending in toddy to the Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies only in all Ranges in selected Districts and in some of the Ranges in some of the Districts. This policy is attacked on the ground that the selection of a few Districts and earmarking some ranges in a District is not supported by a few Districts and earmarking some ranges in a District is not supported by any reason or logic and the same is opposed to equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 57. In our view, the assertion of the petitioners has no merit. It is true, in Khoday’s case, the Apex Court has stated that when the State permits trade or business in potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. The observations made by the Apex Court would not come to the aid of the petitioners. Before we discuss on this issue, it is pertinent to notice that, none of the Co-operative Societies in the State have filed any petition before this Court alleging discrimination. It is only private individuals who are before this Court and they allege discrimination, forgetting for a moment that the Co-operative Societies and private individuals are different classes and if unequals are treated unequally, it cannot be said that there is discrimination. Therefore, there is absolutely no irregularity, illegality or arbitrariness in conducting (entrusting) the toddy shops to Co-operative Societies in certain area. Therefore, there is absolutely no irregularity, illegality or arbitrariness in conducting (entrusting) the toddy shops to Co-operative Societies in certain area. As observed by the Apex Court in Khoday’s case, the State can create a monopoly either in itself or in the agency created by it for the manufacture, possession, sale and distribution of the liquor as a beverage and also sell the licences to the citizens for the said purpose by charging fees and this can be done under Article 19(6) or even otherwise. 58. Petitioners further assert that, the government has evolved a policy giving preference to Co-operative Societies without disclosing any reason. This assertion is answered by the respondents by filing counter affidavit before this Court, wherein they have stated that during the year 2001-2002, the Workers Co-operative Societies in all the selected Districts had functioned properly and profitably and therefore, the Government has earmarked the privilege of vending to Workers Co-operative Societies in those District and certain Ranges/Taluks in some of the Districts. This assertion though disputed by the learned counsels for the petitioners, they have not placed any material before this Court to reject the reasons assigned by the respondents in the counter affidavit. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to recall the observations made by the Apex court in E.K. Shakthi Foundation’s case, wherein the Court has observed that the scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against the statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. The correctness of the reasons, which prompted the Government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another, is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. Therefore, in our opinion, the reason assigned by the State Government in selecting certain district and some ranges in some Districts is neither against any statutory provisions nor in violation of Constitutional provisions. 59. Sri. Kurian George, learned Senior Counsel would inform us at the time of hearing of these petitions, the material on which respondents are relying on was not available when the State Government took decision for granting privilege of vending toddy to some of the Workers Co-operative Society. 59. Sri. Kurian George, learned Senior Counsel would inform us at the time of hearing of these petitions, the material on which respondents are relying on was not available when the State Government took decision for granting privilege of vending toddy to some of the Workers Co-operative Society. However, this assertion is disputed by learned Advocate General by producing before us the records of the State Government and notings made in Cabinet meetings. The records would amply disclose that there was some material before the State Government while granting privilege of vending toddy to Workers Co-operative Societies. Therefore, we reject the contention of the learned counsel made in this regard. 60. Sri. Ramakumar, learned counsel argued that if the policy of the State Government was to provide infrastructural facility and improve the prospects of Toddy Workers Co-operative Societies, it must be applied alike in all Districts and the policy must be implemented alike as the entire State is one unit. In answer to this contention, we need to refer only to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Javed and Others vs. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369), wherein the Supreme Court has accepted the implementation of the policies by the Central or by the State Government in a phased manner. In the said decision the Court has observed: “16. A uniform policy may be devised by the Centre or by a State. However, there is no constitutional requirement that any such policy must be implemented at one go. Policies are capable of being implemented in phased manner. More so, when the policies have far-reaching implications and are dynamic in nature, their implementation in a phased manner is welcome for it receives gradual willing acceptance and invites lesser resistance. 17. The implementation of policy decisions in a phased manner is suggestive neither of arbitrariness nor of discrimination. In L.N. Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change v. State of Bihar (1987) 4 SCC 238), the policy of nationalizing educational institutes was sought to be implemented in a phased manner. This court held that all the institutions cannot be taken over at a time and merely because the beginning was made with one institute, it could not complain that it was singled out and, therefore, Article 14 was violated. This court held that all the institutions cannot be taken over at a time and merely because the beginning was made with one institute, it could not complain that it was singled out and, therefore, Article 14 was violated. Observations of this Court in Pannalal Basilal Pitti v. State of A.P. (1996) 2 SCC 498) are apposite. In a pluralistic society like India, people having faith in different religions, different beliefs and tenets, have peculiar problems of their own. ‘A uniform law, though is highly desirable, enactment thereof is one go perhaps may be counterproductive to unity and integrity of the nation. In a democracy governed by rule of law, gradual progressive change and order should be brought about. Making law or amendment to a law is a slow process and the legislature attempts to remedy where the need is felt most accrue. It would, therefore, be inexpedient and incorrect to think that all laws have to be made uniformly applicable to all people in one go. The mischief or defect, which most acute can be remedied by process of law at stages’.” 61. Now, coming to the composition of Toddy Workers’ Co-operative Society, it is contended that the composition of the Society for the purpose of getting the privilege of vending toddy in the toddy shops reserved in Ext.P2 Societies, the membership in the Society for the Toddy Tappers need only be 51% of the toddy tappers and workers registered with Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and attached to the shops in the respective ranges/Taluks and therefore, the introduction of the Societies is only to help the members of the party which is in power and therefore, composition of Society is contrary to rule 2(na) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules. 62. Rule 2(na) of the Rules defines the meaning of the expression Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tapper Co-operative Society. It only means a society formed at range/taluk level by Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers who are members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. By subsequent notification, it is notified that, such Toddy Workers Co-operative Society should at least have 51% of the toddy tappers as its members. This clarification in no way amends or modifies sub-rule (na) of the rules or the definition of Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society. By subsequent notification, it is notified that, such Toddy Workers Co-operative Society should at least have 51% of the toddy tappers as its members. This clarification in no way amends or modifies sub-rule (na) of the rules or the definition of Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society. Therefore, the notification issued is in no way contrary to the provisions of the Act. 63. It is also contended that the proviso inserted in Rule 3 of the amended rules gives unguided and unbridled power to the State Government. By inserting the proviso, what the rule making authority has done is to give the State Government a right to earmark by notification any number of Toddy Shops in any Range/Taluk for any period by issuing notification. The proviso, so inserted cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The proviso so appended is in terms of Section 18A of the Abkari Act and also in terms of Section 29 of the Act. Since the proviso is in terms of the statutory provisions, it cannot be said that the said proviso is contrary to the provisions of the Act. 64. One important issue that is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the amended Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2007 has come into force only with effect from 1.4.2007 and even before the rules could come into effect, the State Government had granted privilege of vending toddy to Toddy Workers Co-operative Society. This issue, though looks attractive, but on a deeper consideration, in our view, it has no merit. 65. It is now well established that essential legislative functions consist of the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct and cannot be delegated by the legislature. What can be delegated is the task of subordinate legislation necessary for implementing the purpose and objects of an enactment. The rule making authority in order to give effect to the policy decision of the State Government has amended certain provisions of the kerala Abkari Shops disposal Rules, 2002, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18A and 29 of the Abkari Act and the rules are known as Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal (Amendment) Rules, 2007, which is brought into force with effect from 1st April 2007. By the said amendment, in the definition clause, the expressions ‘applicant’ and ‘Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society’ are inserted, immediately after clause (b) and (n) of Rules, 2002. By this insertion the meaning of the expression applicant is widened by including Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, apart from individuals or group of individuals. Similarly, the Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society are defined to mean, a society formed at range level/taluk level by Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Tappers who are members of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. Prior to these amendments, the privilege of vending toddy could be granted by the State Government only to individuals by public sale by the District Collector or by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise or any other authorised officer by the Government. In view of change in Excise Policy for the Excise Year 2007-08, the privilege of vending toddy can be entrusted to Cooperative societies also. To implement the policy, suitable amendments are also made in Rule 3 and 5 of the Rules, 2002. 66. Under Section 18A of the Abkari Act, the legislature has authorized the State Government to grant to any person or persons the exclusive privilege of manufacturing or supplying by wholesale and selling by retail and liquor or intoxicating drug within any local area on his or her payment to the Government of an amount as rental in consideration of the grant of such privilege. Sub-section (2) of Section 18A of the Act, provides that the grantee of any privilege under sub-section (1) shall not exercise the privilege so granted until he receives a licence in that behalf from the Commissioner. The licence is normally for a period of twelve months, commencing from 1st of April of the year till 31st of March of the subsequent year. As we have already noticed, the policy of the Government was entrust the privilege of vending toddy in some of the districts and some of the taluks/ranges in some of the districts to Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Shop Cooperative Societies. As we have already noticed, the policy of the Government was entrust the privilege of vending toddy in some of the districts and some of the taluks/ranges in some of the districts to Toddy Shop Workers and Toddy Shop Cooperative Societies. Though such a decision had been taken in the month of March 2007, the grant of privilege of vending toddy to the Cooperative Societies by issuing necessary licence by the Excise Commissioner was only on 1.4.2007 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government even before the amended rules was made effective, entrusted the privilege of vending toddy to Toddy Tappers Cooperative Societies. At this stage, it is worthwhile to recall the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu ((1979) 2 SCC 34), wherein court was pleased to observe that where two alternative constructions are possible, the court must choose the one which will be in accord with the other parts of the statute and ensure it smooth harmonious working, and eschew the other which leads to absurdity, confusion or fiction, contradiction and conflict between its various provisions or undermines or tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the enactment. 67. Now, we will consider the decisions relied on by learned counsel, Sri. K. Ramakumar, for the petitioner in W.P.8244 of 2007. The learned counsel relies on the observation made by the Apex Court in A. Ashirward Films v. Union of India ((2007) 6 SCC 624). That was a case where constitutionality of a notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh levying different rules of entertainment tax was questioned on the ground that it is discriminatory in nature and thus ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution; in Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association v. Central Valuation Board and Others ((2007) 6 SCC 668), petitioners had called in question the validity or otherwise of certain provisions of the West Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994 before the Apex Court; In Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah and Others (AIR 1993 SC 929) the case relates to the appointment of a dealer of a fair price shop in Andhra Pradesh; In Sriniketan Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd etc. v; Vikas Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd and Others (AIR 1989 SC 1673), the subject matter was allotment of Nazul land in favour of cooperative group housing societies by Government and the allotment made was struck down on the ground of violative of Article 14, being arbitrary and discriminatory; In Common Cause Registered Society v. Union of India and Others (AIR 1996 SC 3538) the issue was allotment of retail outlets for Petroleum products/Petrol pumps made by Minister of State for Petroleum and Natural Gas had been challenged on the ground that no guidelines had been observed while making the allotments and the allotment so made was quashed on the ground that eh allotments were arbitrary and smacked with arbitrariness; In Angarki Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others (AIR 1997 SC 764), the issue was allotment of government land to cooperative housing societies of government servants. The allotment was quashed on the ground of arbitrariness and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 68. In our view, none of the decisions on which reliance is placed by learned counsel would assist the petitioners. In fact, in Khoday Distilleries case ((1995) 1 SCC 574), the Supreme Court after summarizing the law on the subject, was pleased to hold that when the State permits trade or business in the portable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the state cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade of business. In the present case, the State has not made any discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on liquor trade. In the present case, what is done by the State Government is to evolve a new policy of introducing granting of privilege of vending toddy to Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies in particular districts and in some ranges in two districts. The introduction of new policy in a phased manner is essentially a matter of policy within the plenary power of the State and cannot be impugned under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 69. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the Writ Petitions lack merit and they are required to be rejected and accordingly rejected. Consequently, all pending stay applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.