JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2022 delivered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1813/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition, set aside the order dated 23.08.2022 disqualifying the writ petitioner to hold the license of retail vend (JKEL-2) for being holder of license for bottling (JKEL-6), with a direction to Excise Commissioner to immediately and forthwith allow the petitioner to operate his vend by issuing the requisite license in his favour. It was further directed that since by the act of Excise Commissioner issuing the order dated 23.08.2022, the writ petitioner has lost half of the period of license, as such he would be entitled to refund of 50% of the bid amount, which was to be released within a period of four weeks. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the appeal file. 3. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was the highest bidder in the re-auction of liquor vend-in-question and he deposited the bid amount too to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Even after completion of the requisite formalities and obtaining of No Objection Certificate required under the J&K Liquor License and Sales Rules, 1984, the license in favour of the writ petitioner was not issued, rather he was disqualified by the Excise Commissioner vide order dated 23.08.2022 on the ground of being already holder of license for bottling (JKEL-6). 4. Admittedly, the J&K Excise Act Svt., 1958 nowhere provides that a person cannot hold two licences of different types together and simultaneously. Even, there is no prohibition in Rules 18 and 19 of J&K Liquor License and Sales Rules, 1984 with regard to holding of JKEL-2 license in conjunction with JKEL-6 license. Further, we are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that from a plain reading and understanding of the Rules as they stand, there is hardly any scope for placing the interpretation as is sought to be placed by the writ respondents on Rule 19(1) read with Rule 39(6) and what is prohibited is clearly contained in Rule 18. 5. Viewed thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge, except that the refund of 50% of the bid amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of depositing the same till its final realization. 6. 5. Viewed thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge, except that the refund of 50% of the bid amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of depositing the same till its final realization. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed thereby upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge with the aforementioned modification. Connected CM, if any, accordingly, stands disposed of. Caveat No.1540/2022 is discharged.