JUDGMENT : As common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they appear in W.P.(C) No.25942 of 2012. 2. The petitioner was the successful allottee for the conduct of toddy shops in Group No. VIII of Changanacherry Excise Range during the year 2012-13. The allotment in favour of the petitioner was made on 27.07.2012. The fifth respondent preferred a complaint concerning the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The substance of the complaint of the fifth respondent was that there was an arrangement between him and the petitioner at the venue of the allotment to prefer a joint application for allotment; that in furtherance to the said arrangement, he has entrusted to the petitioner four demand drafts taken by him for the purpose of participating in the allotment process; that the petitioner has obtained allotment of the shops contrary to the said arrangement in his name making use of the demand drafts entrusted by the fifth respondent; that the declaration submitted by the petitioner in compliance of Rule 5(7)(v) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules for obtaining the allotment in his favour to the effect that the funds made use of by him for the said purpose belongs to him, is false and that therefore, the allotment is liable to be cancelled. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that he has only borrowed the demand drafts from the fifth respondent and the amounts have been paid back immediately after the allotment. In Ext.P5, the Commissioner of Excise found that in so far as the petitioner has made use of the demand drafts of the fifth respondent, the declaration submitted by the petitioner in compliance of the requirement of Rule 5(7)(v) of the Rules was false and therefore, the allotment is liable to be cancelled. Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. It is seen that this Court has stayed the operation of Ext.P5 order of the Commissioner of Excise and in the light of the said interim order, the petitioner was conducting the toddy shops not only for the year 2012-13, but also for the subsequent years in accordance with the Abkari Policies declared by the Government from time to time. It is seen that this Court has stayed the operation of Ext.P5 order of the Commissioner of Excise and in the light of the said interim order, the petitioner was conducting the toddy shops not only for the year 2012-13, but also for the subsequent years in accordance with the Abkari Policies declared by the Government from time to time. W.P.(C) No.7307 of 2017 is preferred by the fifth respondent on 03.03.3017, seeking directions to the Commissioner of Excise and others for conducting re-sale of the toddy shops in Group No. VIII of Changanacherry Excise Range for the period 2017-'18. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent supporting Ext.P5 order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 6. The correctness of Ext.P5 order is the first issue to be examined. As noted above, Ext.P5 order proceeds on the basis that in so far as the petitioner has made use of the demand drafts taken by the fifth respondent for the purpose of getting the allotment in his favour, the declaration given by him under Rule 5(7)(v) is incorrect and that therefore, the allotment is liable to be cancelled. In an exactly identical fact situation, this Court has considered the said question and held that the allotment is not liable to be cancelled even in a case where it is found that the declaration submitted by the allottee in compliance with the provision contained in Rule 5(7)(v) is false. Ext.P6 is the judgment rendered in that matter. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment read thus: "8. For cancellation of licence already granted, the ingredients contemplated under Rule 5 (17) are, (i) there should be proof to the effect that the purchaser had suppressed facts in his application as to the eligibility or (ii) the purchaser had produced any fake documents for the purpose of getting the privilege declared in his name and for the purpose of obtaining licence granted in his name. In the case at hand, the finding of the 3rd respondent is that "on examination of the affidavits submitted by the respondents before the District Collector at the time of sale they have raised fund for the purchase of toddy shops from their business and relatives". In the case at hand, the finding of the 3rd respondent is that "on examination of the affidavits submitted by the respondents before the District Collector at the time of sale they have raised fund for the purchase of toddy shops from their business and relatives". Sri C.C. Thomas, learned senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent contended that, the affidavit, which is referred to, is the declaration contemplated under Rule 5 (7) (v) of the Disposal Rule and the informations furnished therein are matters which touches the eligibility of the party for purchase of the privilege. Therefore the factual situation prevailing, which is contrary to the terms of the affidavit, will amount to suppression of facts, is the contention. 9. On the other hand Sri. K.V. Sohan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 3rd respondent had not arrived at any conclusion that there was suppression of any material facts in the application on the basis of which the privilege has been alloted. It is pertinent to note that Rule 5 (7) (v) insist that a declaration disclosing the source of fund which is being utilized for purchase of toddy shops, should also be accompanied along with application. The petitioners have stated in the declaration that they have raised fund from their 'business and their relatives'. The foremost question to be considered is whether the petitioners were bound to disclose that they were also using the Demand Drafts purchased by the 6th respondent along with other Demand Drafts. Secondly, even assuming (without admitting) that, the word used 'from business and relatives' will not take in utilisation of the Demand Drafts purchased by the 6th respondent, whether that will amount to a suppression as contemplated under Rule 5 (17)? As stated above, Rule 5 (17) contemplates only with respect to suppression of facts in the application as to the eligibility. Nowhere in the disposal Rules it is stated that if a person borrows money from anybody, for purchase of the privilege, that will in any manner disentitled him for getting allotment. Therefore, I am of the view that even if a wrong information is furnished in the affidavit submitted which is the declaration as contemplated under rule 5 (7) (v), that will not affect the eligibility of the purchaser in getting the privilege. Therefore, I am of the view that even if a wrong information is furnished in the affidavit submitted which is the declaration as contemplated under rule 5 (7) (v), that will not affect the eligibility of the purchaser in getting the privilege. Hence I am of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the 3rd respondent for canceling the licence is not legally sustainable." The view taken by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment is that the allotment once made can be cancelled only if the conditions specified in Rule 5(17) of the Rules are satisfied. This Court has followed Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C) No.372 of 2017 in the context of considering the correctness of an order declining confirmation of an allotment on the ground that the declaration made in compliance of Rule 5(7)(v) of the Rules, is false. In the light of Ext.P6 judgment as also the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.372 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.25942 of 2012 is allowed and Ext.P5 order quashed. 7. Once it is found that the allotment in favour of the petitioner is correct, going by the policies declared by the Government from time to time, the petitioner is entitled to renewal of the licence issued to him pursuant to the allotment, for the subsequent years also. If the petitioner is entitled to the renewal of the licence issued to him pursuant to the allotment for the subsequent years also, the fifth respondent has no right to claim re-allotment of the subject toddy shops. W.P.(C) No.7307 of 2017, in the circumstances, is liable to be dismissed and I do so.