JUDGMENT : Ext.P5 order, by which amounts deposited by the petitioner towards annual rental is forfeited invoking Rule 5(17) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was conducting a group of toddy shops during March, 2014, in Kuravilangad Range. The petitioner participated in the auction conducted on 03.06.2014 and bid for Group No.5 in Kottayam Range. On the same day, he bid for Group No.1 in Pala Range also. Though the petitioner bid in the auction, no agreement was executed with the Excise Department and the bid was not confirmed. According to the Rules then in force, no person shall be allowed to purchase more than two groups of toddy shops. When the petitioner realised this position, he expressed willingness to surrender Group No.5 of Kottayam Range and confine his bid only to Pala Range, as per Ext.P2 letter dated 04.06.2014. 3. Nevertheless, the District Collector, Kottayam issued Ext.P3 order dated 03.06.2014 ordering that the privilege provisionally declared in favour of the petitioner in respect of T.S. Group of Pala Range stands cancelled and the amount of Rs.2,98,650/- deposited as annual rental amount towards Group No.1/14-17 of Pala Range is forfeited to the Government as per Rule 5(17) and Rule 5 (14) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, for violation of Rule 1(b) of the Rules. 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the District Collector, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.14398/2014. This Court set aside the order of the District Collector, without prejudice to the liberty of the authorities to issue fresh orders. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, after hearing the petitioner, passed Ext.P5 order. The 2nd respondent, quoting Rule 5 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 passed Ext.P5 order, again forfeiting the amount deposited as rental. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order. 5. I have perused the pleadings in the writ petition and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 6. The general conditions applicable to sale of the toddy shops are contained in Chapter 4 of the Kerala Abkari Shops and Disposal Rules, 2002. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order. 5. I have perused the pleadings in the writ petition and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 6. The general conditions applicable to sale of the toddy shops are contained in Chapter 4 of the Kerala Abkari Shops and Disposal Rules, 2002. Rule 5(17) states that if it is found at any stage that any purchaser of privilege had suppressed facts in his application as to his eligibility or produced fake documents and obtained the privilege declared or confirmed in his name or obtained any licence granted in his name, the licence issued to him, if any, will be cancelled and the whole of the amount paid by him towards the annual rental of the group/range, shall be forfeited to Government and the group/range resold or otherwise disposed of. 7. The respondents in this case has forfeited the amount paid by the petitioner invoking Rule 5(17). On a perusal of the pleadings and the arguments, it comes out that there is no element of suppression of facts in any of the applications submitted by the petitioner as to his eligibility nor is there anything to show that the petitioner has produced fake documents and obtained the privilege. The sine qua non for forfeiting the amount is that there should be either suppression of facts or production of fake documents by the bidder and such suppression/production should have resulted in obtaining the privilege of vending toddy. As long as there is no suppression of facts in the application of the petitioner or production of fake documents by the petitioner, the amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be forfeited. 8. It is pertinent to note in this case that the auction was held on 03.06.2014. The petitioner was already holding licence in respect of Kuravilangad Range and also had bid for Kottayam Range. Therefore, had the petitioner obtained the privilege in respect of Kottayam Range, the petitioner was not entitled to bid for a third Range. However, on coming to know of the statutory requirement, the petitioner has immediately filed Ext.P2 representation to the Excise Commissioner stating that he is willing to withdraw his bid for Group No.5 of Kottayam Range. Ext.P2 shows bona fides of the petitioner. 9. However, on coming to know of the statutory requirement, the petitioner has immediately filed Ext.P2 representation to the Excise Commissioner stating that he is willing to withdraw his bid for Group No.5 of Kottayam Range. Ext.P2 shows bona fides of the petitioner. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and since there is no suppression of facts or production of fake documents by the petitioner in the matter of bidding the toddy shops, I find that the forfeiture of amounts ordered as per Ext.P5 proceedings dated 20.02.2015, is unsustainable in law. Ext.P5 is therefore set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the annual rental deposited by the petitioner, forthwith. Writ petition is disposed of as above.