JUDGMENT : (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) : [WP(C) Nos.31910/2023, 849/2024, 8578/2022] Heard Mr Sudhi Vasudevan (Senior), assisted by Ms Shilpa Sathish and Mr C A Joseph, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Sreejith V.S. learned Government Pleader, Mr M G Karthikeyan learned Counsel for the 6th respondent and Mr P N Santhosh for the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioners have filed these two writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos.31910/2023 and 849/2024, in respect of toddy shop nos. 10, 14, 15, 37 and 38 of Group IV of Mannarkkad Range for the Abkari Year 2019-20 and toddy shop nos. 19, 20, 21, 29 and 34 in Group VI of Mannarkkad Range. W.P.(C) No.8578/2022 is in respect of toddy shop nos. 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 of Group III in Vadakara Range for the Abkari year 2019-20. 2.1 Since the common question of facts and law are involved in these three petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment. The facts are briefly noted hereunder: Facts: W.P.(C) No.8578/2022 3. The petitioner was the licensee of the toddy shops bearing T S nos. 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 of Group No. III in Vadakara Range for the Abkari Year 2017-18. The license for the aforesaid toddy shops was up to 31.03.2018. Crime Nos.181/2017 and 182/2017 of Vadakara Excise Range were registered against the petitioner and the salesman under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act by the Excise Inspector on the allegation that the sample of toddy taken by the Assistant Excise Inspector on 15.04.2017 from the toddy kept in the said toddy shop no 15/16-17 of Vadakara Excise Range and toddy shop no.25/16-17 on chemical analysis were found to contain starch. The Chemical Analysis report dated 13.07.2017 was issued by the Regional Chemical Examiner, Chemical Examination Laboratory, Kozhikode. 3.1 The 1st respondent cancelled the toddy licenses issued to the petitioner for the toddy shops 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 of Group No. III in Vadakara Range by order dated 01.01.2018, stating that the alleged detection of starch in toddy shop No.15/16-17 and toddy shop No. 25/16-17 of Vadakara Range is a serious offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. 3.2 The petitioner along with his salesman submitted applications for compounding of the aforesaid offence bearing Crime Nos.181/2017 and 182/2017 of Vadakara Excise Range in view of the amendment brought to Section 67A of the Abkari Act with effect from 21.12.2017 by Abkari Amendment Act 2018 [Act 25 of 2018] conferring power upon the Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to compound the offence of mixing starch with liquor on payment of Rs.25,000/-. However, the aforesaid applications were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise vide order dated 20.02.2018 on the ground that the said amendment had no retrospective effect and the date of commission of the offence was prior to the date of the said amendment. 3.3 The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise on 20.02.2018 rejecting the compounding application of the petitioner and salesman was challenged in W.P.(C) No.3969/2018. An interim order was granted on 07.02.2018 in the writ petition staying the resale of toddy shops referred to above for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, the said interim order was extended on various occasions and the order was extended until further orders on 24.07.2018. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 25.10.2018. 4. In compliance with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.3969/2018, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise vide order dated 11.12.2018 compounded the offence in question against the petitioner under Section 57(aa) of the Abkari Act on payment of Rs.25,000/- each as compounding fee in Crime Nos.181/2017 and 182/2017. 4.1 Writ Appeals were preferred by the respondents against the judgment dated 25.10.2018 in W.A. No.2451/2018. As an interim order was not issued by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-1, Vadakara, vide order dated 27.12.2018, dropped the proceedings against the petitioner in the two cases, being C.C. Nos.646/2018 and 647/2018. The Division Bench of this Court, by common judgment dated 10.02.2021 in W.A. No.2451/2018 and connected appeals, upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge as regards the right of compounding available to the petitioner and similarly situated persons. The Division Bench of this Court, by common judgment dated 10.02.2021 in W.A. No.2451/2018 and connected appeals, upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge as regards the right of compounding available to the petitioner and similarly situated persons. 4.2 The operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench would read as under: “In the result, the appeals are allowed in part subject to the declaration of law on the impact of composition of offence under the Abkari Act and the findings and observations on the question of civil liability even after composition of an abkari offence given in the table under Section 67A of the Abkari Act. We make it clear that in the said circumstances, if applications for compounding are preferred by the party respondents, the issue of cancellation of licenses shall be taken up and decided in accordance with law, but bearing in mind that the beneficial construction of an ex post facto law is applicable only in criminal proceedings and not in proceedings for deciding civil liability and further that all cases falling under Section 26(b) of the Abkari Act do not call for cancellation of license and it has to be decided depending upon the nature of breach of the terms of the license,[ 2021 (2) KHC 99 ]." 5. After the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.03.2021 before the 1st respondent for reconsideration of the cancellation of the license and restoration of the license to him. According to the petitioner, after the petitioner’s license was cancelled, the license for the said toddy shops was given in favour of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent had submitted an application on 16.03.2021 before the 1st respondent seeking renewal of licenses in respect of the toddy shop nos.11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25. 6. The 3rd private respondent had filed W.P.(C) No.10376/2021 before this Court seeking a direction inter alia to dispose of his application for renewal of the license of the toddy shops. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 30.04.2021 directed the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to dispose of the said application in accordance with the law as expeditious as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 30.04.2021 directed the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to dispose of the said application in accordance with the law as expeditious as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 12.05.2021 before the 1st respondent, praying for an opportunity to be heard when the 3rd respondent’s application for renewal of license for toddy shops was considered. 6.1 The petitioner’s application dated 12.05.2021 for reconsideration of the order cancelling his licenses and restoration of the license in favour of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent, i.e., the Excise Commissioner, vide order dated 16.05.2021. It was observed that since the petitioner did not conduct the toddy shops during the period 2019-20 as per the Abkari policy, the petitioner was not entitled to preference for getting the license, and the right to vend toddy shops had been given to the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent had renewed the toddy shop license in respect of the toddy shops in question in favour of the 3rd respondent for the period till 31.03.2022. 7. The Government of Kerala by notification bearing SRO No.924/2023 dated 01.09.2023 brought an amendment to Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shop Disposal Rules 2002 (for short, ‘Rules 2002’) substituting the figures and symbol “2019-20” in the first sentence of Rule 5 with the figures and symbol and words “2022-23 and the extended period”, purportedly treating licensees who had conducted toddy shops during the year 2022-23 and the extended period against whom no abkari case other than under Section 57 of the Abkari Act was registered at par with the licensees who had conducted toddy shop during the years from 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period but whose licenses were cancelled due to the registration of Abkari cases, provided they were exonerated subsequently by the Court, for the purpose of grant of preference. 7.1 The second sentence of Rule 5(1)(a) was substituted with the following “the licensee who have conducted the shops during the years from 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period, whose licenses cancelled due to registration of Abkari cases and subsequently exonerated by the Court shall also be given preference”. The 2nd sentence in Rule 5(1)(a), the existing figure “2019-20” in Rule 5(1)(a) stood deleted. The 2nd sentence in Rule 5(1)(a), the existing figure “2019-20” in Rule 5(1)(a) stood deleted. 7.2 The State Government, by notification bearing SRO No.942/2023 dated 04.09.2023, notified the program schedule of the sale of toddy shops, including the toddy shops in question, for the years 2023-2026 to be held from 13.09.2023 on an online platform. The petitioner submitted an application dated 11.09.2023 before the Circle Inspector, Vadakkara Range requesting for the grant of preference to the petitioner in the conduct of the sale of toddy shops in question for the ensuing Abkari year 2023-24 and not to give the preference to the 3rd respondent to conduct the toddy shops for the year 2023-24 and thereafter. 8. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition has been filed inter alia for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to renew the licenses of the toddy shops bearing TS numbers 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 25 of Group No.III in Vadakara Range in favour of the 3rd respondent for the period 2022-23 or thereafter. W.P.(C) No.31910/2023 9. The petitioners had jointly been granted a license to vend toddy at toddy shops bearing TS nos.10, 14, 15, 37 and 38 of Group IV in Mannarkkad Range in public sale for a period of three years commencing from the Abkari Year 2019-20. Crime No.27/2020 of Mannarkkad Excise Range was registered against the petitioners and salesman under Sections 57(a), 56(b) and 57(aa) of the Abkari Act. In view of the registration of the aforesaid crime, vide order dated 27.03.2020 the Excise Commissioner suspended the toddy shop licenses of the said toddy shops. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the said toddy shop licenses should not be cancelled within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. 9.1 After cancelling the license of the petitioners in respect of the toddy shop in question, 09.06.2020 was the date fixed for the sale of the toddy shops in question. The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.11823/2020 impugning the sale of aforesaid toddy shops in question on 09.06.2020 and prayed for a direction not to confirm the sale in favour of the 6th respondent and grant preference to the petitioners. The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.11823/2020 impugning the sale of aforesaid toddy shops in question on 09.06.2020 and prayed for a direction not to confirm the sale in favour of the 6th respondent and grant preference to the petitioners. Initially, an interim order dated 16.06.2020 was passed by this Court to the effect that the sale of toddy shops in favour of the 6th respondent would be subject to the result of the writ petition. 9.2 During the pendency of the writ petition W.P.(C) No.11823/2020, the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad by order dated 06.02.2023 passed in CMP No.2312/22 in C.C. No.110/2021 discharged the petitioners from the offences under Sections 57(a), 56(b) and 57(aa) of the Abkari Act. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application dated 09.03.2023 before the Excise Circle Inspector requesting the issuance of a preference certificate in the event of the sale of the toddy shops in question for the ensuing Abkari Years. However, the licenses were renewed in favour of the private 6th respondent for the extended period after the expiry of the Abkari year 2022-23 (31.03.2023). 10. The State Government thereafter declared a new Abkari policy for the year 2023-24 as per the Government Order (M.S.) No.79/2023/Taxes dated 27.07.2023. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted separate applications dated 09.08.2023 before the Excise Circle Inspector requesting for the grant of preference in their favour in the sale of toddy shops in question for the ensuing Abkari Year 2023-24. The Excise Circle Inspector, the 5th respondent, turned down the request of the petitioners for giving preference vide communication dated 26.08.2023. The 5th respondent took the view that as per the Abkari policy of the year 2023-24, preference could be given only to those who had conducted toddy shops during the period 2020-21 to 2022-23 and whose licenses stood cancelled due to involvement in cases and subsequently exonerated by the Court could not be given preference. The 5th respondent took the view that as per the Abkari policy of the year 2023-24, preference could be given only to those who had conducted toddy shops during the period 2020-21 to 2022-23 and whose licenses stood cancelled due to involvement in cases and subsequently exonerated by the Court could not be given preference. 10.1 The petitioners' writ petition, W.P.(C) No.11823/2020 was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.09.2023 without entering into the merits of rival contentions of the parties with direction to the 3rd respondent to immediately consider the claim of the petitioners for issuance of ‘Preference Certificate’ under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules, after hearing providing an opportunity of hearing to them and to the 6th respondent and adverting to all relevant and germane aspects, including any documents to be produced by the parties, especially by the petitioners to establish their exoneration from criminal charges, except under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 21.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.11823/2020, the petitioners were heard by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and vide order dated 25.09.2023 rejected the claim of the petitioners for preference in the sale of toddy shops. 11. The said decision is under challenge before this Court, as is the sale of toddy shops in question in favour of the 6th respondent in the sale conducted on 26.09.2023. W.P.(C) No.849/2024 12. The petitioner was running a toddy shop bearing TS nos 19, 20, 21, 29 and 34 in Group VI of Mannarkkad Range during the period from 10.05.2022 till 09.06.2022 on the strength of orders dated 10.05.2022 and 23.05.2022 issued by the Excise Circle Inspector under the Akbari Shops Departmental Management Rules 1972. Pursuant to the public sale of toddy shops conducted on 26.09.2023, the toddy shops bearing TS nos. 10, 14, 15, 37 and 38 of Group IV in Mannarkkad Range was sold to one Mr Vinod Kumar, the 5th respondent. In the meantime, Mr AijithKumar K and Mr Vinod, the 3rd and 4th respondents, had filed W.P.(C) No.31910/2023 for a declaration that the sale of toddy shops in favour of the 5th respondent was illegal and void and prayed for not to confirm the said sale of the toddy shops in favour of the 5th respondent. In the meantime, Mr AijithKumar K and Mr Vinod, the 3rd and 4th respondents, had filed W.P.(C) No.31910/2023 for a declaration that the sale of toddy shops in favour of the 5th respondent was illegal and void and prayed for not to confirm the said sale of the toddy shops in favour of the 5th respondent. 12.1 In view of the interim orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition the toddy shops bearing TS nos 10, 14, 15, 37 and 38 of Group IV in Mannarkkad Range could not be disposed of before the commencement of the lease period of the said toddy shops. The petitioner submitted an application dated 04.01.2024 before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, through the Excise Circle Inspector requesting for appointment of the petitioner as an agent to run toddy shops bearing TS nos.10, 14, 15, 37 and 38 of Group IV in Mannarkkad Range under Departmental Management as provided under the Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules 1972. The petitioner’s application came to be rejected vide order dated 05.01.2024 on the ground that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.31910/2023 and the pendency of the said writ petition before this Court, the prayer of the petitioner could not be allowed. The said decision dated 05.01.2024 is under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioners’ submission: 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale of the toddy shop in favour of the 3rd respondent [W.P.(C) No.8578/2022] on 10.06.2020 is bad in law as the said sale took place when the license issued to the petitioner stood revived as a result of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in 2018 KHC 5267 which was confirmed by the Division Bench as per judgment reported in 2021 (2) KHC 99 . The learned Counsel further submits that the issue of the necessity of cancellation of the license of the petitioner should have been considered first before the shops were sold to the 3rd respondent in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench reported in 2021 (2) KHC 99 . It is the submission that the extension of license in favour of the 3rd respondent and the subsequent grant of preference certificate and the sale of toddy shops for the Abkari year 2023-24 and extended period is illegal, and therefore, it was to be set aside. It is the submission that the extension of license in favour of the 3rd respondent and the subsequent grant of preference certificate and the sale of toddy shops for the Abkari year 2023-24 and extended period is illegal, and therefore, it was to be set aside. 13.1 Furthermore, it is submitted that the amendment to the second part of Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 providing for preference in the sale of toddy shops only to those exonerated licensees who had conducted toddy shops during the period referred to in the second part of the said amended Rule is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said amendment has brought invidious discrimination against the exonerated licensees who had conducted toddy shops prior to the said period and claimed preference in the next sale of toddy shops following their exoneration. By the said amendment brought on 01.09.2023 to the second part of Rule 5(1)(a) of the said Rules, the existing figure “2019-20” was substituted by the figure and words “2020-21 to 2022-23 and extended period” with the result that the exonerated licensees who conducted toddy shops prior to 2020-21 are treated differently from those exonerated licensees who conducted toddy shops during the year from 2020-21 onwards. This differential treatment is not founded on intelligible differentia. 13.2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the year in which the toddy shops were conducted cannot form a valid basis for differentiating among the exonerated licensees. Differential treatment based on the year in which the toddy shop was conducted has no rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Rule, namely, to restore the right to conduct toddy shops by the exonerated licensee. This differentiation is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and falls short of the dual test for valid classification envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. Further, it is submitted that the first part of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules 2002 provided for differential treatment in the sale of the toddy shops only to those licensees who had conducted toddy shops during the periods referred to in the first part of the amended Rule, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It discriminates against the licensees who had conducted toddy shops prior to the said period and claimed preference in the sale at the earliest opportunity. It discriminates against the licensees who had conducted toddy shops prior to the said period and claimed preference in the sale at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, the year in which the toddy shops were conducted cannot form a valid basis for differentiating among the exonerated licensees. The differential treatment meted out to those who conducted toddy shops prior to 2022-23 and those who have conducted toddy shops in 2022-23 and thereafter is not founded on intelligible differentia. The differential treatment has no rational relation to the objects that are sought to be achieved by the Rule, viz., to give preference to those regular licensees under the usual sale who had acquired unblemished experience in the conduct of the toddy shops. Respondent's submission: 15. The respondents have, however, submitted that the 6th respondent got allotment of all the toddy shops in Group No.IV of Mannarkkad Excise Range in Palakkad Division for the year 2020-2023 in general allotment of the toddy shops across the State conducted in the month of March 2020. During 2019-20 the petitioners were the licensees. But, when the license for the period 2019-20 was about to expire on 31.03.2020, the licensees got involved in an Abkari case and their licenses were suspended on 27.03.2020. The licenses were up to 31.03.2020, and the general allotment of shops was already scheduled across the State, including the shops in Group IV. As per the policy of the Government, existing licensees, if not implicated in Abkari cases involving offences other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act were entitled to preference in the allotment as per the provision under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules 2002. Preference was also extended to those who were licensees during the year 2019-20 and whose licenses were cancelled due to registration of cases and who later got exonerated and, thus, could not complete the license period. 15.1 The petitioners were involved in offences other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act and were not exonerated by the Courts at the time of the allotment. Therefore, they were not eligible for preferences as per the Rules. As there were no other preference holders and there were many applicants, the shops in Group IV were placed for open allotment by drawing lots. In the draw of lots, the 6th respondent was successful, and the shops were allotted to him. Therefore, they were not eligible for preferences as per the Rules. As there were no other preference holders and there were many applicants, the shops in Group IV were placed for open allotment by drawing lots. In the draw of lots, the 6th respondent was successful, and the shops were allotted to him. The 6th respondent conducted all the toddy shops in Group No. IV during the three-year period 2020-2023 and the extended period up to 30.09.2023. 16. As per the Abkari policy for the period 2023-24, the toddy shops across the State were allotted for a period of three years, i.e., 2023-2026. As per the provisions of Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002, the existing licensees who conducted the shops during the period 2022-23 and the extended period were given preference in the allotment if they were not implicated in Abkari cases involving offences other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act. The 6th respondent conducted the toddy shops for the year 2022-23 and up to the extended period of 30.09.2023 and he was not involved in any Abkari cases involving offences other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act. Hence, he was given preference in allotment when the shops were allotted to him for the period of three years from 2023-26 provisionally, subject to confirmation by the Excise Commissioner under Rule 5(15) of the Rules 2002. 16.1 However, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the confirmation of the shops was deferred. It is submitted that those who have conducted toddy shops for the year 2022-23 and the extended period alone would be eligible for preference in view of the amended Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002, Ext.R6(a) and the guidelines in Ext.R6(b). 17. The second limb of amended Rule 5(1)(a) provides that the licensees would be entitled to get preference if the licensees have conducted toddy shops from 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period, whose licenses were cancelled due to registration of Abkari cases and subsequently exonerated by the Court. 18. It is submitted that the petitioners were not the licensees from 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period. Their licenses were for the period 2019-20 and then suspended before the expiry of the license period, and thereafter, they did not conduct the shops. 18. It is submitted that the petitioners were not the licensees from 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period. Their licenses were for the period 2019-20 and then suspended before the expiry of the license period, and thereafter, they did not conduct the shops. It is submitted that there is nothing wrong with the Rules and this is the policy decision reflected in the statutory Rules. The licenses for vending the toddy shops were given to persons who were not involved in the Abkari offences other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act and those who have conducted the toddy shops in the years from 2020-21 to 2022-23, i.e., the previous year of the allotment, or those who had conducted the toddy shops for the years from 2020-21 to 2022-23, but were involved in the Abkari offence other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act and later on they were exonerated. Discussion and Analysis: 19. The issue which requires consideration of this Court is the challenge to amendment to the second part of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules 2002. The amendment to the second part of Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 provides for preference in the allotment of toddy shops only to those exonerated licensees who had conducted toddy shops during the period from 2020-21 to 2022-23 and extended period. The period of licence is for three years. Therefore, a person who had conducted the toddy shops during this period, was involved in offences other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act and was exonerated has been given preference. 19.1 The Rule has been amended to give preference to those licensees who had conducted the toddy shops in the preceding years and not to the licensees who have not conducted the toddy shops before the preceding year than the year of the allotment. The Rule has a purpose and object that the person who has made an investment in toddy shops should be given preference in the allotment of toddy shops for the subsequent year if his license was cancelled due to an offence other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act and was later exonerated. A person whose license was cancelled prior to the previous license period and the person whose license was cancelled because of the involvement of offence in the current license year but is exonerated, both stand on two different platforms. A person whose license was cancelled prior to the previous license period and the person whose license was cancelled because of the involvement of offence in the current license year but is exonerated, both stand on two different platforms. The person who is continuing with the license before the allotment and the person who was not continuing with the license before the allotment are not homogenous groups. 20. Therefore, I do not find that the second part of Rules 2002 is in any manner discriminatory. This is with the purpose of giving preference to those who have continued with the license preceding the year of allotment, but whose licenses were cancelled for their involvement in offences other than Section 56 of the Abkari Act and later they got exonerated. Giving preference to these licensees does not, in any way, violate Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find much substance in the challenge to the amended Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002. 21. Amended Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 makes it clear that those who have conducted toddy shops for the year 2022-23 and the extended period alone are eligible for preference if no Abkari case is registered except for offence under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act. As per the second limb of the Rules, the licensees are entitled to get preference, if the licensees have conducted toddy shops from 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period whose licenses were cancelled due to the registration of Abkari cases and subsequently exonerated by the Court. The petitioners were not the licensees from the year 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period. Their licenses were for the period 2019-20 and then suspended before the expiry of the license period. Thereafter, they did not conduct the shops. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that before the cancellation of their licenses, the shops were illegally allotted to the 6th respondent does not appear to be correct, inasmuch as the validity of their licenses expired on 31.03.2020 and their licenses were suspended on 27.03.2020. They had already finished their license period except for four days. The cancellation of the license was only an empty formality. They had already finished their license period except for four days. The cancellation of the license was only an empty formality. I, therefore, do not find that there is any illegality in the allotment of shops to the 6th respondent in the year 2020 or giving preference in the allotment of the toddy shops for the period 2023-2026. 22. Even if the petitioners are exonerated now, as per the amended Rule and guidelines in Ext.R6(b), the petitioners are not entitled to preferential rights for allotment of the toddy shops in question as they were not licensees for the period 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, or the extended period up to 30.09.2023. 23. It is the policy matter of the Government to give preference to the existing licensees in the matter of allotment of toddy shops. Since the allotment was for a period of three years, i.e., 2020-21 to 2022-23 and the extended period, if any, the existing licensees who are eligible for getting preferential treatment in allotment of the toddy shops as per Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 are those licensees who are conducting toddy shops at the time of allotment. The period mentioned in the second limb of Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 gets changed or is amended every time fresh general allotments of toddy shops are made across the State. The period mentioned is the actual period for which the privilege of vending toddy shops is given under the license which is immediately preceding the allotment. The immediate preceding period for the present allotment period, i.e., 2023-2026, is 2020-2023 and the extended period. A licensee should be an existing licensee to be eligible for preference under the first limb but for the registration of the cases against him and the resultant cancellation of the licenses. If such licensees are able to get exonerated during the said period itself, they would also be given preferential treatment, and they would be treated at par with the existing licensee. In case there is more than one preference holder, the Rule provides that the allotment shall be effected by the drawing of lots. It is keeping in line with the policy that the second limb in Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 has been incorporated. The periodical amendments are made to the period mentioned therein. Conclusion: 24. In case there is more than one preference holder, the Rule provides that the allotment shall be effected by the drawing of lots. It is keeping in line with the policy that the second limb in Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 has been incorporated. The periodical amendments are made to the period mentioned therein. Conclusion: 24. In view thereof, I am of the view that the challenge raised in these writ petitions to the cut-off period mentioned in Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2002 has no merit and, therefore, is rejected. It is also well-settled that a person does not have a vested right to conduct toddy shops as it is a privilege conferred by the State as per the relevant Rules and the policy. Result: Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any substance in these writ petitions which are hereby dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications regarding interim matters stand closed.