JUDGMENT : The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) Call for the records leading to Ext. P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order and direction; (ii) declare that the 2nd petitioner is entitled to join with the 1st petitioner in the place of Manikandan K (late father of the 2nd petitioner), who is nominated as legal heir as per the request in Ext.P5 condoning the delay in submitting the application as per Rule 5(18) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 without taking into account Ext.P4 and condoning the delay in submitting the application as per Rule 5(18) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002 at the earliest; and (iv) grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”[SIC] 2. The 1st petitioner along with late father of the 2nd petitioner got the allotment of the toddy shops in Group No.VI in Pattambi excise range in Palakkad division for the year 2020-23. They jointly paid rental for one year, 2020-21, security for one month wages of the employees and advance contribution for three months towards the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. The licence is extended for the year 2021-22 on payment of the entire rental. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to get the extension for the year 2022-23 on payment of the entire rental. Sri.Manikandan, joint licensee along with the 1st petitioner, died on 15.09.2021. But after obtaining the documents, especially Ext.P3-relationship certificate, the 2nd petitioner could submit the application only on 30.12.2021, is the case of the petitioners. The said application is filed for including his name in the place of his late father Manikandan K. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st petitioner has no objection also. But as per Ext.P4, the 1st respondent rejected the application only on the ground that the application ought to have been submitted within one month from the date of death of the joint licencee for including the name of the legal heirs. Petitioners submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent for reconsideration and the same is not considered even now. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. Petitioners submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent for reconsideration and the same is not considered even now. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.C.C.Thomas as instructed by Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. The learned Senior counsel takes me through Rule 5(18) and its proviso of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002 and submitted that the time limit prescribed in it is only directory and here is a case where the 1st petitioner has no objection against the 2nd petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P4 because it is an order passed in accordance to the Rules. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. It will be better to extract Rule 5(18) and its proviso of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002: “(18). In the case of death of a privilege purchaser after confirmation of the sale of the group range, licence if any issued to him shall stands cancelled with effect from the date of his death. His legal heirs, if satisfying the conditions of eligibility specified in these rules, may apply for the privilege producing the necessary legal evidence in support of their claim and producing documents required for consideration of grant of privilege under these rules. The Commissioner of Excise, if satisfied as to their eligibility may there on restore the licence and transfer the privilege to the legal heir or heirs. Pending such transfer the group range shall be run on departmental management or shall be closed down. If the legal heirs fails to comply with the above requirements within a period of one month from the date of death of the privilege purchaser, the group range shall be resold or otherwise disposed of. In such an instance the whole annual rental paid by the deceased privilege purchaser towards the group range shall be forfeited to Government and the legal heirs shall have no claim over it. In such an instance the whole annual rental paid by the deceased privilege purchaser towards the group range shall be forfeited to Government and the legal heirs shall have no claim over it. Provided that, if the privilege of a group range of shops is purchased by a group range of individuals, and in the case of death of any of them, the other privilege purchasers/licensees will be permitted to run the shops and the privilege may be transferred in their names, if the legal heir of the deceased privilege purchaser/licensee is not willing to conduct the shops or doesn't apply in writing for the privilege before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, of the Division, within one month from the date of death. The legal heirs of the deceased privilege purchaser/licensee willing to conduct shop, shall apply for including him/her as a licensee and the Excise Commissioner is satisfied as to his/her eligibility may transfer the privilege to the legal heir(s) along with other licensees. Provided further that, the other privilege licensees shall be allowed to conduct the shops for the remaining period.” 6. A reading of the above provision itself will show that the time limit is fixed as per the Rules only to see that interested parties can submit the application within that time. It can not be interpreted that it is mandatory provision. Here is a case where the 1st petitioner has no objection to include the legal heirs of deceased as licencee. In such circumstances, according to me, the reasoning in Ext.P4 can not be accepted. Ext.P4 can be set aside and the 1st respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P5 representation, de hors the reasoning in Ext.P4. I make it clear that, I am allowing the prayer considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it need not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: i. Ext.P4 is set aside. ii. The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 representation, if the application of the 2nd petitioner is otherwise in order. iii. The above exercise should be completed by the authority as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.