The petitioner is a provisional grantee of the privilege to vend toddy in the toddy shops in Group No.XXI, Kuttanad Range of Alappuzha Division. On the other hand, the fourth respondent was a licencee of the privilege for the year 2013-14 for the same shops. In the oscillation of adjudication at the behest of both the petitioner and the fourth respondent; after going through tumultuous twists and turns, the matter finally resulted in Exhibit P8 order issued by the Commissioner of Excise. He has upheld the fourth respondent's right and declined to confirm the provisional grant in petitioner's favour.

2. The facts in brief are that on 11.07.2013, while the fourth respondent was the licencee of the shops mentioned above, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulinkunnu Police Station, inspected one of the shops (T.S.No.76) belonging to the petitioner. He found two persons, allegedly the Manager and a Salesman, selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the store room. Having arrested those two persons and having seized eight bottles of Brandy and one bottle of Rum, the Sub Inspector of Police registered Crime No.472/2013 against those two persons and also the fourth respondent, arraying them as accused Nos.1 to 3, for the alleged offences under Sections 55(a)(i) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity).

3. As a corollary to the registration of the crime, when the Commissioner of Excise suspended the fourth respondent's licence, he approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.3269/2013 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He obtained Exhibit P9 interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.472/2013.

4. Assailing the order of suspension passed by the Commissioner of Excise, the fourth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.20255/2013 and invited a judgment dated 29.08.2013, by which this Court directed the Commissioner of Excise to consider the petitioner's objections to the order of suspension and pass appropriate orders.

5. As can be seen, the Commissioner of Excise, in compliance with the judgment referred to above, conducted an enquiry and passed Exhibit P2 order revoking the order of suspension.

6. In the meanwhile, as the abkari year was coming to an end, the Government on 05.03.2014 issued a notification proposing to auction the privilege to conduct the various toddy shops, including those that were earlier licensed to the fourth respondent. In response to the said notification, the petitioner, among others, applied.

7. On the fourth respondent's part, he initially applied for preference certificate from the third respondent. Having been denied the same, he too participated in the auction held on 02.03.2014 as a general candidate. As there was more than one contestant in the fray, the authorities drew lots, in which the petitioner emerged successfully. On the very same day, the petitioner is said to have remitted an amount of Rs.7,79,700/- as the requisite fee under various heads.

8. The authorities concerned, having provisionally granted the licence to the petitioner, forwarded the petitioner's application to the Commissioner of Excise for its confirmation. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent filed W.P.(C)No.6380/2014 questioning, inter alia, the denial of the preferential right to him. This Court initially granted an interim stay not to confirm the sale in petitioner's favour. Subsequently, having come to know about the writ petition, the petitioner got himself impleaded.

9. As the record reveals, eventually this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.6380/2014 through Exhibit P3 judgment, relegating the matter to the Commissioner of Excise, who is required to take a decision on the rival claims of the petitioner and the fourth respondent: the confirmation of provisional grant in petitioner's favour and the acceptance of the fourth respondent's preferential right.

10. Having heard the rival contentions, the Commissioner of Excise passed Exhibit P4 order dated 23.05.2014 upholding the fourth respondent's claim and th