JUDGMENT :

C.S.Sudha, J.

This writ appeal is against the judgment dated 18/03/2019 in W.P.(C)No.7527/2015. The appellants herein are the respondents in the writ petition and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. The parties in this writ appeal will be referred to as described in the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P5 order dated 20/02/2015 issued by the second respondent, by which the right to conduct sale of toddy for Toddy Shop, Group No.I in Pala Range provisionally sold to the petitioner, was cancelled and the annual rent of `2,98,650/- remitted by the petitioner to the Government was forfeited as provided under Rule 5(17) for violation of the 2nd proviso to Rule 5(1)(b) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (the Rules). The learned single Judge found no suppression of facts or production of fake documents by the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 5(17) and hence Ext.P5 order was set aside. Aggrieved, the respondents have come up in appeal.

3. Heard Sri.V.K.Sunil, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellants and Sri.S.M.Prasanth, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Rule 5 deals with the grant of privilege of vending toddy which is subject to the conditions stipulated in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) along with the provisos attached to it. The second proviso to clause (b) of sub rule (1) says that no person shall be allowed to purchase more than two groups of toddy shops. Sub rule (3) to Rule (5) deals with the eligibility conditions of an applicant. The eligibility is subject to the conditions contained in clauses (i) to (vi) of sub rule (3). Sub rule (17) to Rule 5 reads -

“(17) If it is found at any stage that any purchaser of privilege had suppressed facts in his application as to his eligibility or produced fake documents and obtained the privilege declared or confirmed in his name or obtained any licence granted in his name, the licence issued to him, if any, will be cancelled and the whole of the amount paid by him towards the annual rental of the group range, shall be forfeited to Government and the group range resold or otherwise disposed of.”

Therefore, only if the bidder suppresses facts in his application relating to his eligibility or produces fake documents, on the basis of which he obtains the privilege of vending toddy, his license is liable to be cancelled and the deposit forfeited.

5. As seen earlier, the eligibility conditions of a bidder/purchaser is contained in sub rule (3). The respondents have no case that any of the conditions in sub rule (3), that is, clauses (i) to (vi), has been violated by the petitioner. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner had already purchased two groups of toddy shops, that is, he was the licensee of TS Group no. IX in Kuravilangad range and one of the purchasers of TS Group no.V in Kottayam range, when he applied for the purchase of TS group no.1 in Pala range. The application for Pala group was the third one. This was noticed by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Pala, while preparing the sale list. This fact when verified by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Kottayam was found to be true.

6. In the appeal memorandum, it is alleged that the stand of the petitioner that he was unaware of the position that a person is not entitled to purchase more than two groups of toddy shops, is incorrect and false because on 03/06/2014, before the auction commenced, the eligibility and criteria for the participants was read out at the venue where the participants including the petitioner herein had assembled for participating in the auction. It was only thereafter the participants had filled out their application forms and submitted them. The petitioner had participated in the auction, knowing fully well that he was not eligible to participate in the auction as he was already holding the privilege to vend toddy for two groups of toddy shops, that is, Kottayam as well as Kuravila