JUDGMENT : Privilege of the right to vend toddy in the shops in group numbers 2 to 9 of Thodupuzha Excise Range in Idukki Division is notified for sale on 26.03.2022. Ext.P1 is the notice dated 22.03.2022 issued in the said regard. The same is under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner who claims to be an intended purchaser. 2. Heard Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P1 notice violates the requirements of Rule 4(1) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). As per the Rule, the Government has to notify the sale in the Gazette at least seven days before the sale. The same has been violated while issuing Ext.P1, is the contention. 4. The sale notified under Ext.P1 is regarding the privilege for the period 2020-23. The licence in favour of the earlier purchaser was cancelled by the Commissioner in terms of Rule 5(19) of the Rules and it is the resale that is notified under Ext.P1. Rule 3(1) of the Rules provides for the sale of the privilege. Rule 4(1) comes under Chapter 3 of the Rules under the Title - “Number, location, schedule and rental of shops”. Rule 4(1) provides for a notification to be published in Gazette at least seven days before the sale indicating the number of shops, the limits within which the shops are to be located, the period, the annual rental and also the place and date of sale. Such an exercise was originally done in the sale of the present shops and licence was issued. The same was cancelled by the Commissioner for violation of the conditions. Ext.P1 notice is only for resale, of said shops that were already specified in the Gazette notification. Being only a resale for the remaining period in respect of the shops already notified earlier in terms of Rule 14(1) of the Rules, no fresh Gazette notification in the manner provided under Rule 4(1) is necessary. There is no provision to indicate that exercise of such a course is warranted in the case of a resale. In the circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P1 is bound to fail. 5. There is no provision to indicate that exercise of such a course is warranted in the case of a resale. In the circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P1 is bound to fail. 5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an intending purchaser and that since Ext.P1 was published only on 22.03.2022 and the sale is proposed on 26.03.2022 sufficient time is not there to collect the necessary documents to take part in the sale. A reading of writ petition shows that the petitioner does not have a case that due to shortage of time he was unable to procure any such records. 6. I do not find any reason to hold Ext.P1 notice as bad in law. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.