The issue that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the subsequent events or developments after the allotment of the privilege to vend toddy could be taken into account to determine retroactively the rights of the participants in the auction.

2. To put the issue in perspective, we may have to narrate the facts keeping the fifth respondent as the protagonist.

3. The fifth respondent was the licencee for the toddy shops of Group No.I in Kunnamangalam till 31.03.2014. While the licence was subsisting, the Excise officials periodically drew samples and sent them for chemical analysis. In two instances, the samples were tested adverse.

4. In elaboration, on 20.12.2012, the Department received Exhibit R5(d) chemical analysis of A-Sample taken from one of the shops of the fifth respondent. Consequently, on 20.02.2013, the authorities registered a crime against the fifth respondent for offences under Sections 57(a) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity). As a natural corollary, the Excise Commissioner suspended the petitioner's licence through an order dated 17.03.2013.

5. Under those circumstances, the fifth respondent approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate and had the B-Sample sent for analysis. Eventually, on 19.03.2013, through Exhibit R5(e), the chemical analysis report of B- Sample was made available. The result was negative: it was in favour of the fifth respondent.

6. Armed with Exhibit R5(e), the chemical analysis report of B-Sample, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.8094/2013 challenging the Excise Commissioner's order of suspension- cum-show cause dated 17.03.2013. In fact, the fifth respondent obtained an interim stay on 22.03.2013 and continued his business.

7. Soon thereafter, based on the chemical analysis report dated 19.10.2012, obtained on a sample sent earlier, the Excise Department, however, on 04.04.2013 registered another crime, Crime No.23/2013 against the fifth respondent for offences under Sections 57(a) and 56(b) of the Act. Predictably, the fifth respondent had the second sample sent for chemical analysis and obtained Exhibit R5(h) report dated 26.04.2013--It was, indeed, in favour of the fifth respondent showing that the percentage of ethyl alcohol was within the permissible limits.

8. As if it were an instance of deja vu, the fifth respondent once again approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.12135/2013 and obtained an interim stay, whereby he continued his business.

9. It is the contention of the fifth respondent that in 2013, there was no policy of regular allotment of the licence or privilege to vend toddy. In that abkari year, the licence was extended periodically, on three occasions, till 31.04.2014.

10. As it emerges from the record, pending those two writ petitions, the fifth respondent filed Crl.M.C.No. 1606/2013 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., before this Court seeking a direction to the Investigating Agency to expedite the investigation and file a final report on the crimes registered against him. Through an order dated 28.06.2013, this Court directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation at the earliest.

11. Later, in February 2014, the fifth respondent is said to have come to know that in both the crimes the investigating agency had filed its final report. In that context, the fifth respondent on 19.02.2014 obtained a certified copy of the final report and filed petitions for his discharge on the premise that the final reports did not contain even a whisper about the chemical analysis reports of B-Samples, leave alone any challenge to their correctness.

12. The Judicial First Class Magistrate through Exhibit R5(k) dated 25.03.2014 and this Court through Exhibit R5(i) order discharged the fifth respondent and other accused from the crimes. In the interim, on the parallel lines, the Government initiated steps, as a matter of policy, to allot the privilege or licence to vend toddy for the abkari year 2014-2015.

13. In terms of the said policy,