JUDGMENT

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

The appeal is from the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order, which rejected the preferential claim for allotment of toddy shop to the petitioners. The learned Single Judge found that composition of an offence would not result in an acquittal and the preferential right can be exercised only when a person is so exonerated. Hence Ext.P7 rejecting the preferential claim was unimpeachable, was the reasoning.

2. Sri. Karthikeyan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge was misled insofar as the petitioner having never sought for a preferential claim. The appellant had requested the Government to restore the licence, cancelled on the allegation of commission of an offence, which on the basis of the later amendment to the Act stood compounded. Only if restoration is granted, as is the consequence of a composition of offence, only then would a preferential claim arise. The learned Counsel took us through the relevant provisions and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, produced as Ext.P8, which found the compounding provisions to be applicable even fo