JUDGMENT : A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by licencee of a toddy shop whose licence was cancelled pursuant to detecting trace of cannabinoids. 2. It is submitted that re-auction of the toddy shop is scheduled on 04.11.2019. Therefore, the petitioners urge that auction shall be deferred till chemical analysis report is obtained on 'B' sample taken. The petitioners refer to an order passed by the Magistrate Court to obtain 'B' sample report from the Regional Chemical Authority. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that if it is found that in the 'B' sample report there is no trace of such substance, the petitioners would be entitled to run the toddy shop and also would have a preferential right to conduct such toddy shop. 3. The learned Senior Counsel placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramanan vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2016 (2) KHC 746 at para 15 submitted that such discretion is always exercised by this Court and therefore, the re-auction shall be ordered to be deferred. 4. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of another learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 4211/2017 wherein this Court had ordered that the auction of toddy shop shall be deferred till second sample marked as 'B' is obtained from the Regional Chemical Authority. 5. It is true that this Court has to exercise jurisdiction based on the facts and circumstances of the case to put off the auction till 'B' sample is obtained. The learned Government Pleader points out that 'B' sample is only a piece of evidence and that itself could not exonerate a person accused of such offence until it is put through after a full fledged trial. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Komalan, 2010 (2) KLT 190 and judgment of the learned Single Judge in Sudhakaran vs. State of Kerala, 2011 (1) KLT 799 . The learned Senior Counsel points out there is a challenge against these cases and appeals are pending. 6. Anyway, the question now to be considered is to whether this Court has to exercise its discretion in this matter. In exercising power under Article 226, the Court has to be cautious. The learned Senior Counsel points out there is a challenge against these cases and appeals are pending. 6. Anyway, the question now to be considered is to whether this Court has to exercise its discretion in this matter. In exercising power under Article 226, the Court has to be cautious. It is only to protect the vested rights, the court may have to exercise its discretion. The right to conduct a toddy shop is not a fundamental right. It is only a privilege conferred upon licencees. This Court cannot invariably exercise its discretion when facts itself clearly disclose such cancellation was on the materials available. In a matter like this when traces of narcotic substances are traced out, the court should not be inclined to exercise discretion in favour of such licencee. At the best, if the petitioners are acquitted or discharged the petitioners can very well take part in the future auction along with others. I am not inclined to grant any relief in this matter for the reason that the licences were cancelled noting traces of cannabinoids. The writ petitions are only to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as above.