JUDGMENT The facts of this case are as follows :- Since the year 1930 the petitioner Naba Kumar Nayak and one Sm. Karal Badani Dassi were granted Joint Licences under the Bengal Excise Act 1909 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of a Foreign Liquor 'off' shop at premises no. 86, Upper Circular Road, Calcutta under the name and style of "Circular Stores" (hereinafter referred to as the shop). 2. On the 19th November 1961 Sm. Karal Badani Dassi died leaving Sm. Nalini Bala Dassi the respondent no. 5 herein who was her daughter as the sole heir and legal representative. After the death of Sm. Karal Badani Dassi, the petitioner was granted a licence for the shop for a period upto 31st January, 1962. 3. It is the petitioner's case that on the 8th December, 1961 an application was made at the instance of the respondent Nalini Bala and some of her relations for the issue of a joint licence in the name of petitioner and the respondent Nalini Bala. 4. On the 29th January, 1962 the Collector of Excise passed the following order on the Joint application for licence:- "Read connected papers. This is one of the smallest shops of the district. It will hardly pay its way if it is saddled with more than one licensee. The joint petitioner Sm. Nalini Bala Dassi will not be able to contribute anything towards management of the shop. Therefore the shop is settled with the other joint petitioner Sri Naba Kumar Nayak provided be is willing to run the shop alone". On the 30th January: 1962 the Collector of Excise passed another order in the following terms :- "The letter required of Sri Nayak has since been received. For the remaining period of 1961-62 the shop is settled with him", Thereafter the respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, against the order of the Collector of Excise. 5. By his order dated the 25th day of May 1962 the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, set aside the order of the Collector of Excise. 5 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, against the order of the Collector of Excise. 5. By his order dated the 25th day of May 1962 the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, set aside the order of the Collector of Excise. The, Commissioner of Excise gave certain directions in the following terms :- "I further direct the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, to hold an immediate enquiry into the financial condition of the appellant who is stated to be a childless widow and an inheritor of all the property of her mother, the deceased joint licensee, it is found as a result of such enquiry that without a share of the income of the foreign liquor shop, the appellant is not in a position to maintain herself on her present income from other sources, the shop should be jointly settled with the appellant and Sri Naba Kumar Nayak. If, however, it is found that the appellant is in a position to maintain herself from her income from other sources without having to draw anything from the income of the foreign liquor shop, the shop may be settled with Sri Naba Kumar Nayak alone. Pending settlement accordingly, Shri Nayak may be authorised to run the shop." 6. On the 17th August 1962 the petitioner received a communication from the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, to the effect that, pending enquiry as directed by the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, the shop was being settled afresh with him for the remaining period of 1962-63. 7. On the 11th February, 1963, the petitioner applied for renewal of the license for the shop for the year 1963-64. 8. Thereafter this Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, on the 9th May 1963, passed his final order in the appeal filed by the respondent no. 5, on, inter alia, the following terms :- "There was an earlier appeal in the matter which (disposed of by my order dated 25.5.62. In that order I gave a direction that if it was found upon enquiry that the appellant is in a position to maintain herself from her income from other sources without having to draw anything from the income of the foreign liquor shop the shop may be settled with Naba Kumar Nayak alone. In that order I gave a direction that if it was found upon enquiry that the appellant is in a position to maintain herself from her income from other sources without having to draw anything from the income of the foreign liquor shop the shop may be settled with Naba Kumar Nayak alone. The Collector of Excise caused an enquiry to be made by a responsible officer, to wit, the Superintendent of Excise-in-Charge of Foreign Liquor, and is satisfied on perusal of the report of the Superintendent that the appellant has reasonable means of sustenance without income from the shop. The appellant has sought to challenge the facts stated by the Superintendent of Excise in order to advance her case. I am afraid, I cannot go into the field over again, as accommodation to widows of ex-licensees should not extend to securing them their desired comfort in financial position. I therefore, uphold the impugned order of the Collector and reject the appeal. " 9. Thereafter the respondent no. 5 went up in revision before the Minister of Excise wherein an order was passed which was communicated to the petitioner on the 4th November, 1963. The operative part of the order is in the following terms :- "The Governor is pleased to allow the revision petition and to order that a direction be issued to the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, to grant the license of the above mentioned shop jointly to Sri Naba Kumar Nayak and Sm. Nalini Bala Dasi and the orders of the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal dated the 9th May 1963 upholding in appeal the order of the Collector of Excise, Calcutta dated the 9th August 1962 settling the foreign Liquor 'off' shop at 86, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road (formerly Upper Circular Road), Calcutta to Sri Naba Kumar Nayak alone are revised to that extent." 10. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner moved this court by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Rule Nisi was issued by this Court and an interim injunction was granted. 11. The Rule Nisi which was marked as Matter No. 451 of 1963 came up for hearing before Sinha J. (as he then was) on the 25th March, 1964. As the subsisting licence was valid only up to the 31st March, 1964, the matter was disposed of by consent of parties. 11. The Rule Nisi which was marked as Matter No. 451 of 1963 came up for hearing before Sinha J. (as he then was) on the 25th March, 1964. As the subsisting licence was valid only up to the 31st March, 1964, the matter was disposed of by consent of parties. The minutes of the order of Sinha J. were recorded in the following terms :- "It is agreed that an order will be made as follows:- The petitioner withdraws his objection to the order of the Minister granting a joint licence valid upto March 31, 1964. For this period it is agreed that the petitioner will continue to pay to the respondent no. 5 at a rate of Rs. 40/- per month as he was doing up to November 1963, that is to say, the payment will be made at that rate from December 1963 upto March 31, 1964, so far as the business is concerned the respondent no. 5 will not claim anything further from the petitioner on this account and will not interfere with the day to day administration of the shop. Upon the expiry .of the licence on March 31, 1964 both parties will be at liberty either individually or jointly to make an application for a licence for subsequent periods and the authority will deal with the said applications in accordance with law. This will include applications already made. No party will be entitled to ask for renewal jointly in the absence of the consent of the party but will be entitled to apply in his or her own name or jointly with some one else who consents to jointing the application. Interim order is vacated. There will be no order on this application, each party paying his own costs, Parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes." 12. On the 26th March 1964 the petitioner made an application for grant of a licence for the shop for the year 1964-65 in his favour individually pursuant to the liberty granted by the order of Sinha J. On the 30th March 1964, the respondent no. 5 also made an application for licence. The application of the respondent no. 5 was for a joint licence with the petitioner or alternatively with one Tarapada Saha who did not Blake any application but submitted a consent petition stating that he would have no objection to the grant. 5 also made an application for licence. The application of the respondent no. 5 was for a joint licence with the petitioner or alternatively with one Tarapada Saha who did not Blake any application but submitted a consent petition stating that he would have no objection to the grant. 13. On the 31st March, 1964 the Collector of Excise passed an order directing the settlement of the shop with the petitioner alone. Pursuant to the order, a licence was issued to the petitioner for the year 1964-65 on the 1st April, 1964. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Excise dated the 31st March 1964, the respondent no. 5 and Tarapada the respondent no.6 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Excise who upheld the order of the Collector of Excise by his order dated the 11th October 1964. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed an application for revision of the order of the Commissioner of Excise before the State Government. Meanwhile the licence for the shop was renewed in favour of the petitioner for the year 1965-66. 15. On or about the 10th March 1965 the respondent no.5 tiled a suit in this court, being suit no. 425 of 1965. In the suit, the respondent no.5 prayed for a declaration that the partnership between the respondent no.5 and the petitioner stood dissolved, alternatively for dissolution, for accounts and other reliefs. On the 21st May 1965 an order was passed by S.P. Mitra, J. in the suit appointing a Receiver for making inventory of the books of account. A direction was given on the petitioner to pay to the respondent no. 5 a sum of Rs. 125/- per month subject to adjustment. The order was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 16. On the 14th August 1965 an order was passed on the revision petition filed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as aforesaid against the order of the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal dated the 11th October 1964. The order, which is material for our purpose, is set out in full:- "The revision petition filed by Sm. 16. On the 14th August 1965 an order was passed on the revision petition filed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as aforesaid against the order of the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal dated the 11th October 1964. The order, which is material for our purpose, is set out in full:- "The revision petition filed by Sm. Nalini Bala Dasi, Ex-joint licensee of the Foreign Liquor 'off' shop at 86, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta formerly Upper Circular Road (Previously situated at 64/3, Mechua Bazar Street, Calcutta) and by Shri Tarapada Saha, salesman of the said shop against the order of the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal, dated the 11th October 1964 upholding in appeal the order dated 31st March 1964 of the Collector of Excise, Calcutta granting the license of the said shop to Shri Naba Kumar Nayak alone has been carefully considered and records of the case examined. The Governor was pleased to allow the revision petition and to direct that the licence be issued on the joint petition and to direct that the license be issued in the joint names of Sm. Nalini Bala Dasi and Shri Naba Kumar Nayak, if Shri Nayak is agreeable to join hands with Sm. Dassi within a month from the date of this order, failing which the license be issued in the name of Sm. Nalini Bala Dasi and Shri Tarapada Saha, who is a close relation of the said Nalini Bala and has worked as a salesman for a long time. The impugned order of the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, dated 31st March, 1964, and the order dated 11th October 1964 of the Commissioner of Excise, West Bengal confirming the order of the Collector are set aside." 17. The reasons recorded by the Minister of Excise in support of the above order are contained in a separate note which is annexed to the petition at pages 96 to 102 thereof. 18. It is this order of the Minister of Excise dated the 7th August 1965 which was communicated on the 14th August, 1965 by the Deputy Secretary of the Government of West Bengal and the reasons in support thereof which are challenged before me in this application. 19. 18. It is this order of the Minister of Excise dated the 7th August 1965 which was communicated on the 14th August, 1965 by the Deputy Secretary of the Government of West Bengal and the reasons in support thereof which are challenged before me in this application. 19. Before adverting to the respective contentions of the parties, it would be relevant to refer to the reasons given by the Minister of Excise in support of his order which is impugned before me. After setting out the background of the case and the various proceedings had before the Excise authorities and this Court, the Minister of Excise proceeds to observe as follows :- "The question now is as to what should be done in the circumstances aforesaid. It is rather unfortunate that this matter has been dragging on for the last 4 years and has led to litigation between the parties involving huge expenses for a socalled small shop. Had the license been originally given by the Collector as prayed for jointly to the petitioner Nalinibala Dassi and Nabakumar Nayak, the situation would not have arisen in this way. To me it appears that the license originally being in the name of the mother of the petitioner, her claim should not have been ignored by the Collector of Excise on the ground that the shop was very small. If it was very small was always so even during the life time of Karal Badani Dassi for the last 50 years and it could not be conceived that there was any change in the position that existed during the life time of Karal Badani Dasi and the situation that existed after her death. It appears, however, that being encouraged by the decision of the Collector of Excise Nabakumar Nayak filed an application after this rejection to give the license in his name alone. The Hon'ble Excise Minister, my predecessor decried the procedure followed in the matter of settlement and advised that the license should be given jointly to Nalinibala and Nabkumar Nayak Nabakumar Nayak did not agree to be a partner with Nalinibala and made an application to the court and according to the directions arrived at as mentioned above, a fresh opportunity was given to the parties to apply for a license jointly or individually before the authorities. Thereafter Nalinibala expressed her willingness even to take joint license if Nabakumar agreed, failing which she wanted joint license with Tarapada Saha, but Nabakumar did not agree and applied for a license in his name alone and the Collector again settled the licence with Nabakumar alone and the Commissioner of Excise also confirmed the same. To me it appears that it will be inequitable to deprive the daughter of the original license from the benefits of this shop which has been in her family for such a long time. She is a window and it may be that she has got some source of income by which she can exist but that is no reason why she should be deprived of a share even in this license. It will be inequitable and unjust to my mind to deprive the daughter of the deceased licensee of the benefits of this license. If Nabakumar Nayak is still prepared to join hands with the said Nalini Bala the license be issued in the name of the said Sm. Nalinibala and Nabakumar Nayak. If, however, within a month from the date hereof the said Nabakumar Nayak does not agree to join hands with Nalini bala the license should be issued in the name of Sm. Nalini Bala dassi and Sri Tarapada Saha, who is a close relation of the said Nalinibala and has worked as a salesman for a long time. I, therefore, advise that the appeal be allowed in the manner mentioned above and the order of the Collector of Excise dated 31.1.64 confirmed by the order of the Commissioner of Excise dated 11.10.64 be set aside." 20. Mr. Sankar Ghose appearing on behalf of the petitioner has urged various grounds challenging the impugned order and the reasons in support thereof. It was submitted, in the first place, that the impugned order is in violation of and contrary to the order of Sinha, JJ. dated the 25th March, 1964. It was pointed out that the order of Sinha, J. clearly stipulated that no party was entitled to ask for a joint license in the absence of consent from the other party. On the records before me, there is no question of the petitioner Naba Kumar Nayak consenting to the issue of the joint licence with the respondent Nalini Bala when the petitioner has already been granted a licence in his individual name. On the records before me, there is no question of the petitioner Naba Kumar Nayak consenting to the issue of the joint licence with the respondent Nalini Bala when the petitioner has already been granted a licence in his individual name. In any event, it was not the case of the respondent Nalini Bala that she had obtained the consent of the petitioner before applying for a joint license. Consequently, the order of the Minister of Excise directing the issue of a joint licence is contrary to the order of Sinha, J. 21. In my view, this contention of Mr. Ghose is well founded, it is clear that there bas been long standing animosity between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent no. 5 on the other. It was presumably in this background that the consent order which was passed by Sinha, J. provided that each party would be entitled to apply for a licence in his or her name individually and contest the claim of the other party. It was only if the two contending parties could come together that they would be entitled to apply for a joint licence by mutual consent. Quite clearly, there has been no consent accorded by the petitioner in favour of a joint licence in the name of the petitioner and the respondent no 5. That being the position, the Minister of Excise, in my view, committed an error in interpreting the order of this Court passed by Sinha, J. 22. It was next contended that the order of the Minister of Excise is perverse as there was no material to support the finding. It was submitted that the authorities below had found as a fact that respondent Nalini Bala had sufficient property income of her own to maintain herself. It has further been found that the shop was too small to bear the burden of two licensees. There was no new material before the Minister of Excise to controvert those two salient findings of fact by the lower authorities. In act, these findings of fact are concurrent having been accepted both by the Collector of Excise and the Commissioner of Excise. Consequently, the order of the Minister is perverse as being without any factual material. There was no new material before the Minister of Excise to controvert those two salient findings of fact by the lower authorities. In act, these findings of fact are concurrent having been accepted both by the Collector of Excise and the Commissioner of Excise. Consequently, the order of the Minister is perverse as being without any factual material. This contention is also of substance, on a perusal of the order of the minister of Excise, it does not appear to me that any fresh material was adduced on behalf of the respondent Nalini Bala to outweigh the effect of the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities which were in favour of a grant to the petitioner. In that state of affairs, this contention of the petitioner should also succeed. 23. It was next submitted that the effect of the order of the Minister of Excise is to compel the petitioner to enter into a partnership with the respondent Nalini Bala for the purpose of carrying on the business of the shop. The Minister of Excise had no authority or jurisdiction to give such a direction especially in view of the fact that the respondent no.5 had filed a suit for the dissolution of an alleged partnership between herself and the petitioner. In the pending suit in this court being suit no.425 of 1965 serious allegations have been made by the respondent no.5 against the petitioner. This was a very material fact to which the Minister of Excise should have adverted before passing the impugned order directing the issue of a joint license. The order of the Minister, it was submitted, is vitiated by the non consideration of this salient and material fact. 24. It is to be noted that, in the reasons in support of his order, the Minister, while narrating the facts recorded the following observations : "On the 15th March 1965 Sm. Nalinibala filed a suit against Nabakumar in the High Court and an application was made for the appointment of a Receiver and interim relief and an interim order was made by the said court appointing a Receiver for a limited purpose." 25. Inspite of the aforesaid statement of fact the Minister while giving his reasons does not appear to have adverted to the effect and impact of these legal proceedings in the matter before him. Inspite of the aforesaid statement of fact the Minister while giving his reasons does not appear to have adverted to the effect and impact of these legal proceedings in the matter before him. Assuming for the purpose of argument, that there was a subsisting partnership between the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner, the respondent Nalinibala herself has moved this court for dissolution of the partnership. This clearly postulates that the partners has lost faith and confidence in each other. The matter is subjudice and is pending investigation by this court. In this state of affairs, to direct that the petitioner should be compeled to carryon a partnership along with the respondent no. 5 in the running of the said shop seems to me to go against all cannons of justice and fair play. In my view, Mr. Ghose is right when he submits that the order of the Minister is vitiated by non consideration of this very important and material aspect of the question. 26. At this stage it would be relevant to notice some of the authorities which were cited from the Bar. Reliance was placed on a decision of this court in the case of (1) Behari Lal Saha v. Jogodish Chadra Saha reported in (1904) 8 C.W.N. 635 at page 639 of the report, Sale, J. Observed as follows :- "It is to be remarked that the provisions against transfer of licenses and the subletting of shops for the sale of liquor show that the object and purpose of the Excise Law is to make the license a personal privilege which the Excise Authorities have the sole right of granting or withholding and that the rights or privileges conferred by the license cannot be transferred by one private individual to another. But this is what the plaintiff seeks to do by the instrumentality of the agreement." Relying of the above passage it was contended that a license being a personal privilege, the concept of transfer or transmission by inheritance or succession is totally extraneous to the scheme of the Excise Law. In the order of the Minister the sole ground for including Nalini Bala as a joint license's is that the shop belonged to her mother and she is her mother's daughter. This concept of succession, it was urged by Mr. Ghose was totally foreign to the scheme of the Excise Act. In the order of the Minister the sole ground for including Nalini Bala as a joint license's is that the shop belonged to her mother and she is her mother's daughter. This concept of succession, it was urged by Mr. Ghose was totally foreign to the scheme of the Excise Act. Heritability, it was submitted, is not a valid oriterion and such a compassionate ground cannot be a relevant consideration. 27. Reference was next made to another decision of the Court in the case of (2) Jogesh Chandra Roy v. State of West Bengal and others. reported in A.I.R. 1968 Calcutta 528. At paragraph 7 of the Report, D. Basu, J. observed as follows :- "There is no doubt that in the matter of granting a liquor license the persons's experience in the line is the foremost consideration and other relevant matters would be his financial stability the features of the site selected by him, and perhaps his influence in the locality.;' On the strength of these observations it was submitted that petitioner having been found to be a man with the necessary experience to carry on the business the Minister of Excise acted arbitrarily and in perverse manner in setting aside the decision of the lower authorities. 28. Lastly. Mr. Ghose relied on an another recent decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of (3) Kamal Prosad Biswas, v. Chandra Shekhor Prasad and ors., reported in 70 C.W.N. 807. At paragraph 23 of the report at page 818, P.B. Mukherji J. (as he then was) observed as follows :- "Both the Collector of Excise as well as the Commissioner of Excise came to the definite findings of facts, namely, on property, experience and conviction. It is all the more regretable in this case because that the Minister was doing was not deciding the case for the first time but was only revising the orders made by the Collector and the Excise Commissioner. In revision the concurrent findings of fact should not as a rule be interfered with unless and findings are based or no evidence and unsupported by acts. In revision the concurrent findings of fact should not as a rule be interfered with unless and findings are based or no evidence and unsupported by acts. See the observations of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 477 at p 479-80." Relying on the observations of the division bench in the above case it was submitted that since the lower authorities had come to a concurrent finding of the fact which was based on investigation and enquiries the Minister of Excise was wrong in interfering with the order. 29. In my view, these contentions are well founded. It is to be noticed that the Minister of Excise in his impugned order does not anywhere expressly override or set aside the findings of fact by the lower authorities. That being so, and the law being as laid down by the various decisions of this court, the Minister was clearly in error in coming to a different conclusion from these of the lower authorities, 30. Lastly, Mr. Ghose strongly commented on the fact that the Minister had directed in the alternative the issue a joint license in favour of the respondent Nalinibala and the respondent Tarapada. This it was submitted is clearly outside the scope and the purview of the order of Sinha J. which provided for a joint license by consent of the contending parties before Sinha J. Tarapada, it was pointed out, was no party to those proceedings. This contention, in my view, is also sound. The order of the Minister appears to me is also vitiative on this ground that a joint license in the alternative has been directed to be issued to the respondent Nalinibala and respondent Tarapada, thereby totally ousting the claim of the petitioner. 31. Mr. Subhas Sen appearing for the respondent sought to argue in the first place that the application was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the case of (4) Sri Kalidas Chakravarti v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 241. 31. Mr. Subhas Sen appearing for the respondent sought to argue in the first place that the application was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the case of (4) Sri Kalidas Chakravarti v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 241. At paragraph 10 of the report the following passage occurs :- "In this view of the matter it appears to me that the power of revision is an over-riding power and it is open to a person aggrieved by any order either to appeal from the order by which he is aggrieved or to present a petition for revision straightway to the Provincial Government for the purpose of obtaining the relief which he asks for. It may be, that the Provincial Government in exercise of its discretion under s. 8 (3) of the Act may refuse to entertain petition in revision in cases where it thinks that an appeal is the more suitable or more appropriate remedy available to the petitioner or it may refuse to entertain such petition for revision in other cases where it may decide that the petitioner should not be allowed to have direct access to the Provincial Government, without exhausting his remedy by way of appeal. In the case before me it was, therefore, quite within the power of the Hon'ble Minister of Excise to entertain the first petition for revision which had been presented before him by the respondent no. 3 and it was quite open to him also to make the direction that he gave in exercise of this power of revision for treating the petition as a memorandum of appeal and disposing of the petition in exercise of the appellate power of the Excise Commissioner. It is to be noted that an appeal was already pending before the Excise Commissioner in respect of the matter of this very license in respect of the liquor shop at Siliguri, and accordingly, the Minister thought that it would be proper and convenient that the two matters should be disposed of by the same authority in order that there might not be conflicting decisions with regard to the same subject. Dr. Gupta has not suggested in course of his argument, although there is suggestion to this effect in the petition, that the order of the Hon'ble Minister was actuated by any improper motive. Dr. Gupta has not suggested in course of his argument, although there is suggestion to this effect in the petition, that the order of the Hon'ble Minister was actuated by any improper motive. In the absence of any malafides on the part of the Hon'ble Minister or the other authority concerned I do not see how this court can interfere with the order of the Excise Minister, which was made directing the grant of license in favour of respondent No. 3". 32. I do not see how this decision is of any assistance to the respondent. In the present case, I have found that the order of the Minister of Excise was vitiated by extraneous considerations and by non-consideration of material facts. The above decision, as I read it, does not lay down that if an order has been prompted by an extraneous consideration or is vitiated by non-consideration of important and material facts, this court cannot interfere in exercise of its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. This contention of Mr. Sen, therefore, fails. 33. Relying on a decision in the case of (5) Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, reported in AIR 1958 SC 398 Mr. Sen sought to argue that no reasons need be given in revision. This question, in my view, is an academic one. It may be that the Minister of Excise need not have given reasons in support of his order. But the fact remains that he has given his reasons in the present case. That being so, the order has become a speaking order. As such, this Court is entitled to interfere with a speaking order on the basis of certain settled principles of law. This objection as to the maintainability of the application also therefore fails. 34. Coming to the merits of the Minister's order Mr. Sen contended that the Minister has found that the smallness of the shop is not a valid ground for refusing a joint license as prayed for by respondent, Nalinibala. He has further relied on the order of his predecessor, Minister of Excise, Shri J. N. Kolay, who has also directed a joint licence. Lastly, the Minister has found that the licence has been in the family and as such should remain within the family. These findings, according to Mr. He has further relied on the order of his predecessor, Minister of Excise, Shri J. N. Kolay, who has also directed a joint licence. Lastly, the Minister has found that the licence has been in the family and as such should remain within the family. These findings, according to Mr. Sen, were sufficient to justify the Minister in making this order. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Sen. 35. As I have discussed earlier, none of the grounds in support of the order of the Minister is really based on any cogent evidence. Having particular regard to the concurrent finding of facts by the lower authorities, the Minister was not justified as I have already held in setting aside the order on such flimsy grounds. This contention of Mr. Sen, therefore, fails. Dealing with the argument on behalf of the respondents that the Minister's decision related to a particular year which had already expired and consequently the application has become infructuous, Mr. Ghose submitted that it was not so. According to him, the principles laid down in the impugned order would be binding on subordinate authorities and the Minister's decision will affect the petitioner's future chances of renewal of the licence. If the original grant is bad, the renewal would also be bad. 36. My attention was drawn to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (6) Asoke Chandra Banerjee v. B. N. Sen & Ors. reported in (1963) C.L.J. 30. The observation at pages 40-41 of the report suggest that if the original grant was bad the renewal would also be bad. 37. Reference was also made to another decision of this Court in the case of (7) Balai Chand Saha v. Biswanath Saha & Ors., reported in 67 C. W. N. 529. In that decision, it was held that several extensions of license to a particular grantee, are in reality renewals of the original grant of the licence. Consequently, when the original grant is set aside by a higher authority, the renewals also stand automatically set aside and do not subsist for the period for which it was renewed. Therefore, although the latter renewals are not the subject matters of the appeal or revision, still then they would be governed by the decision of the State Government in subject of original grant of license. 38. Therefore, although the latter renewals are not the subject matters of the appeal or revision, still then they would be governed by the decision of the State Government in subject of original grant of license. 38. Having regard to the state of authorities it must be held that the Minister's order although it relates to a particular year would, unless interfered with by this Court, affect the future renewals of the license in favour of the petitioner. This application therefore cannot be held to be infructuous. 39. This disposes of all the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 40. In the result, this application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. There will be a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated the 7th August, 1965 passed by the Minister of Excise, West Bengal and a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the order in any manner whatsoever. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to proceed according to law. There will be no order as to costs.