Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
In the matter of
ASHOK LANKA AND ANR.
(Appellants)
V.
RISHI DIXIT AND ORS.
(Respondent)
Date of Submission: - 08.03.2011
Submission before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

Counsel for Respondent
ADITI TIWARI
SEM-IV
ROLL NO.-05
2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. II

 List of Abbreviations…………………………………………..III

 Index of Authorities……………………………………………IV
 Cases Referred……………………………………..........IV
 Books ………………………………................................V
 Statutes…………………...................................................V

 Facts of the case…………………………………………..…….VI

 Issues Raised……………………….………………….............VIII

 Summary of Pleadings…………………………………….…….IX

 Pleadings………………………………………………………....X
 WHETHER THE SELECTION PROCESS BY THE STATE IN THE AWARD OF

TENDER IS CORRECT OR NOT?

 Prayer for Relief………………………………...…………….XVII

 Annexure-1……………………………………………...……XVIII
 Annexure-2……………………………………………………XXII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. &: And

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. III

2. Anr Another
3. AIR: All India Reporter
4. Ed: Edition
5. HC: High Court
6. Hon’ble: Honorable
7. ILJ : Indian Law Journal
8. J.: Justice
9. Ors.: Others
10. SC: Supreme Court
11. SCC: Supreme Court Cases
12. SCR: Supreme Court Review
13. V: Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. IV

 Board of Control for Cricket India and Anr. V. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors.,
AIR 2005 SC
592……………………………………………………………………..16
 Deoraj V. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,, AIR 2004 SC

1975……………………………………………………………………………...14
 Guruyayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr V. C.K. Rajan and Ors.,
(2003) 7 SCC 546…………...…………………………………............14
 Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank V. Neelam, (2005) ILJ 1153 SC
…………………………………………………………………………...………14
 P.T. Rajan V. T.P.M. Salur, AIR 2003 SC

4603……………………………………..............................................11

 Prahlad Singh V. Col. Sukhdev Singh , 1987 (29) ELT 490………………...….14

 Ramana Dayaram Shetty V. The International Airport Authority of India and
Ors., (1979) ILJ 217 SC …….................................................................11
 R. Prabha Devi and Ors. V. Government of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Ors , (1988) ILJ 56 SC

………………………………………………………………….
…....10
 U.P. State Electricity Board V. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr., (2005) ILJ 117 SC
……………………………………………………………….………
11

BOOKS REFERRED

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. V

 M.P. JAIN, ‘Indian Constitutional Law’ , LEXIS NEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS, 6TH EDITION
 V.N.SHUKLA, ‘Constitution of India’ , EASTERN BOOK COMPANY,
11TH EDITION

STATUTES

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 195

 CHHATTISGARH EXCISE ACT, 1915

FACTS OF THE CASE

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. VI

 The instant case originally arose out of public interest litigation in Jitendra Pali v.
State of Chhattisgarh (WP No. 706 of 2005). Subsequently, the other petitions
came to be tiled by candidates including Rishi Dixit v. State of Chhattisgarh (WP
No. 956 of 2005). Both the writ petitions were heard together and separate
judgments were delivered in each of them.
 Appellants were granted excise licenses by co-appellant, the State. Grant of the
licenses was governed by the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, where under, by a
notification dated 15-3-2002, the State Government had made Chhattisgarh
Excise Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Country/Foreign Liquor Rules,
2002. However, notification dated 5-7-2005, with retrospective effect, omitted
from Rule 9(3) (d) requirement of certificate regarding criminal antecedents of
family members of selected licensee.

 Respondents opposed grant of licenses to appellants by filing objections before

District Level Selection Committees. On rejection of their objections, they filed
writ petition before High Court, making sixty five licensees parties, while leaving
out one hundred and twenty six others. In pleadings, in response to rejoinder of
respondents, State filed an additional affidavit also.

 High Court held that

(i) District Level Committees had committed several irregularities.

(ii) The burden of proof to prove that the applicants for grant of licenses did not
possess the prescribed eligibility was wrongly placed on the objectors like
respondents, as they were not supposed to prove the negative facts by
producing evidence.

(iii) There was no conflict between the English and Hindi versions of Rule 9(3)
(d), and English version would prevail over Hindi version, rejection
contention of State that notification dated 5-7-2005 merely corrected error
in English version which was absent in its Hindi version.

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. VII

(iv) A sur-rejoinder to rejoinder was impermissible without permission of the

court, and hence did not consider it.

 On the aforementioned premises, the High Court allowed the writ petition and
cancelled entire set of licenses. Hence the present appeal before Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. VIII

1. Whether the Selection process by the State in the award of tender is correct or
not?
1.1. Whether provisions under rule 9 of the act are mandatory or discretionary,
in nature?
1.2. Whether amendments in some of the provisions, with retrospective effect,
are lawful in nature?
1.3. Whether public interest litigation has to be entertained on not?
1.4. Whether act done by state was lawful and dutiful in nature?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. IX

The whole case is based on the mode of the selection. All the parties participated in the
selection process. Some of them became successful. They had not complied with the
statutory requirements not because they were not willing to do so but because the
statutory authorities were not correctly advised. The conduct of the statutory authorities a
must be deprecated.

Undoubtedly, the State is entitled to raise its revenue but it is also obligated to fulfill its
constitutional and statutory duties. State has exclusive privilege to deal in liquor but has
also to bear in mind that it has constitutional and legal duty to safeguard public interest
and public health.

Conditions for grant of license laid down in statute are required to be observed only with
view to sub serve constitutional goal and not to submerse same. Affidavit required to be
filed in whatever format must disclose all information required under law. This would
enable statutory authorities to verify same, licenses to deal in liquor cannot be granted on
mere asking by a person, and only because, he is in position to fulfill requirements as
regard deposit of license fee and other charges.

State is entitled to raise its revenue, but is obligated to fulfill its constitutional and
statutory duties.

PLEADINGS

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. X

Whether the Selection process by the State in the award of tender is correct or not?

The selection process by the state in the award of tender is not correct

a. Whether provisions under rule 9 of the act are mandatory or discretionary, in

nature?

Rule 9 is mandatory in nature and, thus, all applications for grant of liquor licence
would call for scrutiny. Even if such a consideration is read to be directory, no
substantial compliance thereof having been made, it was argued, the entire selection
process must be held to be vitiated in law.

Rule 9 provides that the eligibility conditions should be scrutinized before an

application is made. Rule 9 is in two parts. It deals with the eligibility conditions of
the applicant. It does not make any exception as regard fulfilment of different clauses
inasmuch as the said rules begin with the expression "the applicant has to fulfil the
following conditions". Such conditions are required to be fulfilled for obtaining the
licence. Whereas Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof are essential conditions which would
debar a person from filing an application and if such an application is filed, the same
would be liable to be rejected at the outset. An applicant having regard to the
expressions used in Clause (d) has to file an affidavit. Filing of such affidavit,
therefore, is mandatory.1

The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory would depend upon the
statutory scheme. It is now well known that use of the expression "shall" or "may" by
itself is not decisive.2 The court while construing a statute must consider all relevant
factors including the purpose and object the statute seeks to achieve.3
The eligibility clauses contained in the Rules must be held to be mandatory in nature. 4

1
R. Prabha Devi and Ors. v. Government of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and
Training, Administrative Reforms and Ors, (1988) ILJ 56 SC
2
P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Salur , AIR 2003 SC 4603
3
U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr. , (2005) ILJ 117 SC
4
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors., (1979)IILLJ217SC

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XI

Conditions conceived in Rule 9 being in public interest, are mandatory in character.

whereas in terms of amendment dated 9.3.2004, the Commissioner of Excise had
been empowered to prescribe the format, he had no jurisdiction to do away with or
dilute the statutory requirements to file an affidavit as required by Rule 9 of the
Rules.
While exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, the State is concerned with the
maintenance of public health and, thus, Rule 9 should be held to be mandatory
particularly having regard to the tact that such affidavit is also necessary for the
purpose of exercise of power by the State for suspension and cancellation of licence
in terms of Rule 23(1) (c) of the Rules.

The expression "has to submit an affidavit" ex facie is mandatory in nature and such
affidavit necessarily has to deal with the requirements contained in Clauses (1) and
(2). If the rule making authority was of the opinion that such an affidavit was
required to be filed at a later date and not with an application, it could have said so in
express terms; as has been done in the case of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9. In fact, all the
sub clauses were to be a part of affidavit as Clauses (3), (4) and (5) would be only by
way of undertaking, although the requirements of Clauses (3) and (4) can be fulfilled
after the grant of licence. The same should appear from the format of the affidavit
itself.

It would, therefore, be not correct to contend that whereas Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 9
postulates compliance thereof at a pre-selection stage, Clause (d) postulates
compliance at the post-selection stage. The distinction between compliance of
requirements at pre-selection and post-selection is also evident from reading Rule
9(d)(1)(2) and Rule 9(d)(3) separately, inasmuch whereas the former clearly
postulates compliance at pre-selection stage, the latter deals with a situation which is
post-selection.

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XII

Originally in the said writ application the changes made in the selection process,
namely, from manual to computer was in question; but an application for amendment
of the writ petition was made on 9.3.2005 wherein it was contended that the selection
process adopted by the State was vitiated, inter alia, on the premise that no affidavit
was tiled by the applicants as was mandatory required by Rule 9 of the Rules.

The High Court upon analyzing the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there
under was of the opinion that the State was entitled to make the selection of the
eligible candidates through computer. It was, however, opined that the District Level
Committees did not make any scrutiny whatsoever to find out as to whether the
applicants concerned satisfied the eligibility conditions laid down in Rule 9 or not as
no information was required to be furnished in the format prescribed by the
Commissioner of Excise in that behalf.
The High Court was further of the opinion that the disclosure of such information by
the applicants even before the submission of applications were necessary so as to
enable the authorities to satisfy themselves about the fulfillment of different
eligibility conditions mentioned in Rule 9. Consequently, it was directed that a fresh
selection be made in terms of the extant rules.

Furthermore, filing of an affidavit in the prescribed format is a statutory requirement

under the Rules. Filing of such an affidavit is necessary as in the event the same on
verification is found to be incorrect not only the deponent can be proceeded against
but his license would also be liable to be cancelled. Filing of an affidavit under the
Rules is, therefore, mandatory in character.

b. Whether amendments in some of the provisions, with retrospective effect, are

lawful in nature?

The amendment carried out in Rule 9 on or about 9.3.2004 was wholly irrelevant.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 compared to the old provisions contained therein in view of the
language thereof clearly demonstrates that Rule 9 is mandatory in nature. The

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XIII

amendment made in Rule 9 by reason of the notification dated 22.3.2005, cannot put
the clock back as the entire selection process was completed by then.

Rules were amended only for one excise year. The rule making power should be
exercised having regard to the policy to be adopted by the State. Such a policy may
vary from time to time. Having regard to the exigency for the situation, rule may also
be amended but we do snot see any reason as to why an attempt should be made to
amend the rule only with a view to justify an illegal action on the part of the
Commissioner of Excise for the year 2005-06, Although the validity of the rules have
not been challenged, the court cannot shut its eyes from considering this aspect of the
matter. Framing of rules is not an executive act but a legislative act; but there cannot
be any doubt whatsoever that such subordinate legislation must be framed strictly in
consonance with the legislative intent as reflected in the rule making power contained
in Section 62 of the Act.

Yet again Clause (C-1) was added after Clause (c) providing that the first second and
third applicants selected must submit an affidavit duly verified by the public notary in
the prescribed proforma next day during office hours. The notification does not state
that the amendment will have a retrospective effect. In absence of any express
provisions contained in the notification, the court will not ordinarily presume the
same to be retrospective in nature. If a selection process is over upon following a
procedure which is illegal, by reason of a rule making power the same cannot be
rendered valid simply by directing that the same shall govern the selection of
applicants for grant of license under the Act for the year 2005-06.

c. Whether public interest litigation has to be entertained on not?

The High Court did entertain the public interest litigation without any objection and
ultimately allowed the same. Furthermore it is well settled that even in a case where a
petitioner might have moved the court in his private interest and for redressal of
personal grievances5, the court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it

5
Guruyayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. v. C.K. Rajan and Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 546

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XIV

necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest
of justice.6

When a public interest litigation was entertained the individual conduct of the writ
petitioners would take a backseat. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in a
given case a party may waive his legal right. In an appropriate case, the doctrine of
acquiescence or acceptance sub silentio may also be invoked. 7 But the High Court in
the instant case, has gone into the question with a wider perspective. This Court is not
only required to construe the provisions of the statute but also to take into
consideration the subsequent events which took place vis-a-vis the action on the part
of the State after passing of the interim order. The issue as regard application of
acquiescence or waiver.

The persons who fulfill the said eligibility criteria and satisfy the requirements laid
down under the Act and the Rules only could tile such applications which required
scrutiny thereof so as to enable the statutory authorities to consider their cases for
grant of license. The advertisement issued by the State calls upon only such persons
to file applications who are suitable therefore, which in turn would mean that the
applicants must satisfy the authorities that they are eligible for grant of license. 8 The
applicants must also demonstrate that they are suitable for grant of license as in the
event of their being found unsuitable, steps are required to be taken by the committee
for resettlement of the shops, where for procedures laid down in Rule 8 were required
to be complied with again.

Despite the fact that the High Court by an order dated 7.3.2004 prohibited the State
from disclosing the list of selected candidates, the so-called selected candidates filed
applications for grant of special leave to appeal before this Court on the premise that
they had been selected.

d. Whether act done by state was lawful and dutiful in nature?

6
Prahlad Singh v. Col. Sukhdev Singh, 1987 (29) ELT 490
7
Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank v. Neelam, (2005) ILJ 1153 SC
8
Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1975

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XV

The Chhattisgarh Excise Act 1915 and the rules framed there under are regulatory in
nature. They are being so enacted so as to ensure public health as trade in liquor is
considered to be obnoxious one. The State has a duty to see that its people do not
consume spurious or adulterated liquor. The Act and the rules no doubt contain
provisions for cancellation and/or suspension of the license in the event the
conditions laid down therein are violated, but it is beyond any cavil that before a
license is granted, the applicant must satisfy all the statutory conditions and meet the
eligibility requirements.

A statute must be read reasonably. A statute should not read in such a manner which
results in absurdity, A statute, on its plain language, although postulates a prospective
operation, it cannot be held to be retrospective only because it would apply for the
excise year for which applications were invited despite the fact that the selection
process made there under is over. The State is bound by the terms of the
advertisement and the rules existing at that time. The statutory authorities and the
applicants are expected to follow the law as it stood thence. No step could be taken
on the pre-supposition that the rule would be amended. It is also not a case where
draft rules were already in existence and such draft rules had been applied, which
could otherwise be permissible in law. But a situation of this nature is not
contemplated in law.

A rule may not be challenged as ultra vires the Act, but its interpretation can certainly
be an issue. The rule if given retrospective effect would become unworkable and
would not capable of being given effect to. A rule cannot be framed keeping in view
that the Commissioner has issued certain circular which is illegal. By reason of a rule
making power, an invalid action on the part of the Commissioner of Excise cannot be
validated.

Regarding the affidavit filed by the State, it would appear that the contents of the
affidavits had not been verified in accordance with law and the contents thereof had
ex-facie been accepted on a pre-supposition that they were correct although there
exists no statutory rule empowering the Committee to raise such a presumption.

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XVI

Undoubtedly, the state has the exclusive privilege to deal in liquor but it has also to
be borne in mind that it has a constitutional and legal duty to safeguard the public
interest and public health. The conditions for grant of license as laid down in the
statute are required to be observed only with a view to sub serve the constitutional
goal and not to submerse the same. A statutory authority while exercising its statutory
functions may do away with or dilute the statutory mandates. The Commissioner of
Excise is a statutory authority. He is bound to exercise his power only within the
four-comers of the Act or the rules trained there under and not de' hors the same.

Court is entitled to take into consideration subsequent events so as to do the complete

justice to the parties.9 When this Court passed an interim order it was expected that
the statutory requirements therefore, shall be complied with. Even if Rule 9 is held to
be directory, substantial compliance thereof was necessary. A mandatory statute
requires strict compliance whereas a directory statute requires substantial compliance.
Even if a statute is directory, the State cannot say that the requirements contained
therein do not envisage compliance thereof, the authorities of the State cannot raise a
plea that they would not even notice the inherent detects contained in the application.
They could not proceed on a presupposition, for which there is no legal sanction, that
contents of the affidavit would be correct.

The functionaries of the State and/or the Selection Committees, having regard to the
nature of transaction were required to verify the applications before selection.

The procedures for selection must be fair and in consonance with the provisions of
the Act and the Rules.

PRAYER FOR RELEIF

In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, Respondent,
humbly prays before the Honorable Court, to adjudge and declare that:
9
Board of Control for Cricket India and Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 592

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XVII

I. Appeal should not be allowed.

II. The whole of Rule 9 must be considered mandatory in selection process, and
amendments if made, must have whole and long-term retrospective effect.

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in
light of justice equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Date Counsel for Respondent

08.03.2011 Aditi Tiwari

ANNEXURE- 1
RULES

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XVIII

Rule 4 provides for formation of groups of liquor shops; Clause (iii) whereof
prohibits an applicant/firm/company from obtaining licenses for more than two
groups of shops.

Rule 5 provides for the period of license which would be for an excise year or part
thereof.

Rule 8 provides for procedure for grant of license:

"Procedure for grant of license -

(a) Whenever a new license is proposed to be granted in an area or locality, the licensing
authority shall invite the applications for this purpose after giving wide publicity through
daily newspapers having circulation in that area.

(b) A list of shops of country/foreign liquor for which the licensing authority proposes to
grant license shall be exhibited along with shop wise license fee minimum month wise
guaranteed quantity, security amount and annual quantity in office of Collector, Tehsil,
and District Excise Officer/Asstt. Commissioner excise and Deputy Commissioner
Excise (Flying squad)

(c) Application for grant of license with application fee shall be submitted in the
prescribed form.

(d) The last date to be fixed for the receipt of application shall not be earlier than ten days
with effect from the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspapers."

Rule 9 read as follows:

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XIX

"Eligibility conditions for applicant. - The applicant has to fulfill the following conditions
for obtaining the license for shop/Group of shops of Country/foreign liquor.

(a) Should be a citizen of India or a partnership firm whose partners are citizens of India.
No change in partnership shall be allowed after settlement of shop(s) /group of shops
except with the permission of the Excise Commissioner.

(b) Should be above 21 years of age.

(c) Should not be a defaulter/blacklisted or debarred from holding an excise licence under
the provisions of any rules made under the Act.

(d) Has to submit an affidavit duly verified by public notary as proof of the following
namely :

(1) That he possesses or has an arrangement for taking on rent suitable premises in that
locality for opening the shops in accordance with the rules.

(2) That he possesses good moral character and have no criminal background and have
not been convicted of any offence punishable under the Act or Narcotic Drugs And
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or any other law for the time being in force or any
other cognizable and non-bailable offence.

(3) That in case he is selected as licensee he will furnish a certificate issued by

Superintendent of Police of the district of which he is the resident showing that he as well
as his family members possess good moral character and have no criminal background or
criminal record, within thirty days of grant of licence.

(4) That he shall not employ any salesman or representative who has criminal
background as mentioned in Clause (iii) or who suffer from any infectious or contagious
disease or is below 21 years of age or a woman.

(5) That no government dues are outstanding against him."

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XX

Rule 10 envisages formation of a District Level Committee;

Rule 11 provides for selection of licensees, Clauses (b) and (c) where of read thus:

"(b) The said committee shall select licensees from the list of applicants. In case more
than one applicant are found suitable for any particular group of shops the committee
shall select the licensee for such group of shops by tottery. In case the selected applicant
does not deposit the required amount according to Rule 13 and does not fulfill the
prescribed formalities or is unable to arrange suitable premises for the shops within
stipulated period, the licensing authority shall, cancel the allotment and take steps for
resettlement of the shops/group of shops.

(c) In case there is no application for a particular group of shops or no applicant is found
suitable for a group of shops the licensing authority shall take immediate steps for
resettlement as per procedure laid down in Rule 8."

Rule 13 provides for payment of license fee and security amount, which are as
follows:

"Payment of license fee and security amount- In case an applicant is selected as licensee,
he shall deposit one month's amount of license fee and the security amount within three
days of being informed of his selection. If he tails to deposit the amount of one month
license fee and security amount within prescribed period, his selection shall stand
cancelled and the said licensee shall be debarred from holding any excise license in
future, anywhere in the State and his applications fee shall also stand forfeited. A
consolidated list of such defaulters under this rule, along with their complete addresses
shall be forwarded by the District Excise officer/Assistant Commissioner to the Excise
Commissioner, who will circulate the consolidated list of the State to all the licensing
authorities of the State."

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XXI

Rule 23 provides for suspension and cancellation of the license, in the event any of
the conditions laid down therein is violated; Clause (c) of it is as follows:

"If the affidavit submitted by the licensee at the time of application is found incorrect and
assertions made therein are found to be false.”

ANNEXURE- 2
AMENDMENTS

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XXII

"8. APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF COUNTRY/FOREIGN LIQUOR

SHOP/GROUP:

(1) Application form for the year 2005-06 for country/foreign liquor retail shops/groups
which has been amended and published in notification issued by this office is being
enclosed and sent. Application for country/foreign liquor retail shop can be made by any
applicant in the specified enclosed format only. Separate applications will be accepted for
every group. Application fee in accordance with the cost price of the concerned group
should be in the form of bank draft/bankers cheque/bank's cash order form a nationalized
bank/scheduled commercium bank or challan received after submitting the cash in the
treasury is mandatory to be produced in original with the application. Applicant should
not make any change or amendment in the format of application form and application
form will be accepted in prescribed format only.

(2) For the year 2005-06, the Select Committee will make a draw using a computer and
select first, second and third applicant. It will be mandatory for those selected first,
second and third applicants to immediately produce art affidavit duly verified by a
notary. Selected applicants should not make any changes or amendments to the format of
the affidavit and the affidavit will be accepted in the specified format only. Format of the
affidavit will be in accordance with the known format of 2004-05."

"22. AMENDMENT IN THE CHHATTISGARH EXCISE SETTLEMENT OF

LICENCES FOR RETAIL SALE OF COUNTRY/FOREIGN LIQUOR RULES,
2002:

For settlement of retail shops/groups of country/foreign liquor for the year 2005-06,
under application system, aforesaid directions are being issued and accordingly
proceedings shall be ascertained, even then where amendment is to be done in the
Chhattisgarh Excise Settlement of Licences for retail sale of country/foreign liquor Rules,
2002, for that notification shall be sent severally. Similarly, for licence fees prescribed
for the year 2005-06 for licence of F.L. 2 & F.L. 3, notification shall be sent separately."

Memorial for Respondent

Ashok Lanka And Anr. V. Rishi Dixit And Ors. XXIII

Memorial for Respondent