Balakrishnan Nair, J.

1. The appellants were the respondents in the Writ Petition. The respondents were the writ petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following : The respondents are the partners of Apsara Tourist Home. The said firm was having an FL-3 licence, authorising retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in its restaurant. There were 12 partners for the said firm, when it was reconstituted as per Ext.P2, on 1.4.1996. One of them, K.V.Balakrishnan, died on 13.6.2003. After his death, it was decided to reconstitute the partnership, with the remaining 11 partners. The son of K.V.Balakrishnan was already a partner of the firm. Annexure R-II dated 27.6.2003 was the partnership deed executed, pursuant to the said decision. It was forwarded to the Excise Commissioner, by Annexure R-III. But, the same was not approved by the said officer. The licence of the firm was being renewed from time to time.

3. Another partner, A.P.Antony, died on 9.10.1006. All his sons were already the partners of the firm. On his death, again, motion was made for reconstitution of the partnership, as per Ext.P1 dated 19.10.2006. At the time of death of A.P.Antony, he was an Abkari defaulter. The amount defaulted related to some other Abkari business done by him, earlier. As on 1.9.2007, the amount due from him was Rs.76,34,451/-. According to the respondents, the said amount due to the State from late A.P.Antony was realised on 24.4.2007. According to the State, the amount was cleared only on 21.4.2008. Because of the default of A.P.Antony, it appears, his children, who were partners of the firm, were also treated as defaulters. So, the FL3 licence granted to the firm was not renewed from 1.4.2007. In the above back ground, the Writ Petition was filed by the respondents, seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to renew the FL-3 licence granted to Hotel Apsara, Shornur for the Abkari year 2007-08 as the licence was operational till 31.3.2007.

(ii) Issue a writ declaring that Ext.P1 is not a reconstitution as there is no incoming or retiring partners other than the rearrangement of shares among the existing partners in terms of Ext.P2.

(iii) Issue a writ declaring that the 2nd proviso to Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules is contrary to the 6th proviso to Rule 13(3) and discriminatory and arbitrary as the licensees who intend to reconstitute the partnership firm within the terms of the deed under which the licence was renewed are treated differently than others who are given the renewal of the licence in terms of the 6th proviso to Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules.

(iv) Issue a writ declaring that sub-rule (ii) of Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules is unreasonable as the reconstitution of the firm by dividing the shares among the partners cannot constitute transfer as per law.

The second respondent in the Writ Petition filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. According to the said respondent, with the death of A.P.Antony, there was reconstitution of the partnership and the same would be covered by Rule 19

(ii) of the Foreign Liquor Rules (for short, 'the Rules'). There was no permission obtained for the same, from the Excise Commissioner. Further, permission could not have been granted because the children of A.P.Antony were Abkari defaulters.

4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed prayers 1 and 2. The other reliefs were declined. The writ petitioners have not appealed against the judgment. But, the respondents in the Writ Petition appealed, feeling aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dealt with the case of the respondents/petitioners along with the cases of a few other writ petitioners, at paragraph 13 of the judgment, which reads as follows :-

"13. In these cases (W.P.C.Nos.28698, 28699 and 23870 of 2007) admittedly, the reconstitution o