JUDGMENT : S.K. Jha, J. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners has challenged the order of settlement of a foreign liquor “off” shop made in favour of respondent 4, B. D. Panchania, by respondents 1 to 3, more specifically, respondent 2, the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Ranchi, by lottery as evidenced by the last paragraph of the document marked annexure 3 to the writ application. It is needless for us to go into the detailed provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Rules framed there under either by the State Government under section 89 or by the Board of Revenue under section 90 of the Act. The fate of this case depend upon the true construction of the Government circular as contained in letter no. 2/29 dated 31.3.79 issued by the Secretary to the Revenue Department of the State Government to the Excise Department officials concerned, The only question, which we are called upon to consider and decide in this case, is as to whether the settlement made by lottery in favour of respondent 4 on 1979 of the foreign liquor "off" shop at Ranchi is in consonance with, or, on the contrary, in contravention of, the provisions as contained in the circular (annexure 2, If it be held on the one hand that the settlement so made in favour of respondent 4 was in consonance with the procedure prescribed in the circular (annexure 2). the writ application must fail. If, however, on the contrary, it be held that the procedure as laid down in annexure 2 is mandatory and has been contravened by making the settlement on 19.4.1979 in favour of respondent 4 the application has to succeed. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application are indeed very short and simple. By a notification dated 28.3.79, copy where of bas been incorporated in annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit, the State Government in purported exercise of its powers conferred under section 19(4) of the Act imposed a total prohibition throughout the State of Bihar, inter alia, in respect of foreign liquor. By a notification dated 28.3.79, copy where of bas been incorporated in annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit, the State Government in purported exercise of its powers conferred under section 19(4) of the Act imposed a total prohibition throughout the State of Bihar, inter alia, in respect of foreign liquor. That notification was, however the subject-matter of challenge in a number of writ applications and the Patna Bench of this Court struck down that notification as being ultra vires the provisions of section 19(4) of the Act on the ground that section 19(4) there of did not apply to cases of total prohibition and there was no legislative sanction behind the notification dated 28.3.79. Soon thereafter, however, an Ordinance was passed by the Governor of Bihar with retrospective effect from 1.4.79 which has not been challenged so far and, therefore, for all practical purposes the operation of the prohibition policy of the State Government became effective throughout the State from the 1st of April, 1979. This, however, has been stated merely by way of the legislative history of the present law banning the possession and/or consumption inter alia, of foreign liquor throughout the State. In the notification aforesaid (annexure 4) however, there was a provision that persons, specially authorised in this behalf, could possess or a holder of a licence, pass or permit duly granted in this behalf may possess and/or consume any intoxicant other than bhang and tari. It was further given out by the Excise and Prohibition Department of the State Government by letter no. 2390 dated 23.3.79 as contained in annexure 5 to the supplementary affidavit, which was circulated to all the authorities and dealers concerned in the State that for every district and for Jamshedpur, Barauni and Bokaro, which were not districts, there shall be issued an “off” licence for the sale of foreign liquor in accordance with the procedure to be subsequently prescribed. That procedure was prescribed by the circular contained in letter dated 2729 dated 31.3.79 which, already stated above, has been incorporated in annexure 2 to the writ application. That procedure was prescribed by the circular contained in letter dated 2729 dated 31.3.79 which, already stated above, has been incorporated in annexure 2 to the writ application. Before setting out the other relevant facts, which require to be taken notice of, I think it worthwhile to give below the English translation of the procedure as prescribed in the circular (annexure 2); the Hindi version of the original will be appended to this judgment as appendix A: "The procedure for settlement of shops : Since these shops will be of extra-ordinary nature and through their medium foreign liquor shall be provided to a limited extent only to the permit-holder, their settlement will be made in the following manner. (ka) The settlement of the foreign liquor 'off' shops' will be made by lottery from amongst such persons who (1) were bolding retail licences for sale of foreign liquor for 7 years or more up to 1978-79: (2) were of good record. (kha) In tile districts of Ranchi, Dhanbad, Giridih, Patna Darbhanga, Bhagalpur and Monghyr a list shall be prepared of the first 10 ex-licensees on the bails of tile figures of their turn over for the years 1975-76, 76-77, 77-78, who may be fulfilling the conditions laid down in Paragraph ka above and the selection of a licensee shall be made by lottery from amongst only those 10 selected ex-licensees. Letter no. 2729 31 March, 79 Shri P.C. Singh, Secretary Revenue Department. Patna.” 3. This was the special procedure laid down for the so-cal1ed extraordinary shops to fulfil the limited needs of the permit-holders. It will be seen from the aforesaid procedure that for certain districts enumerated in paragraph 'kiha' of the circular including Ranchi a list of the first 10 ex-licencees, on the basis their turn over figures for the last 3 years, having clean record, and who had held licences for 7 years or more up to 1978-79, had to be prepared by the departmental authority. The only question for consideration in this case is as to whether this procedure, which has been specially laid down by the State Government, has been adhered to by respondents 1 to 3 in making the settlement of the shop by lottery in favour of respondent 4 on 19.4.1979 (vide annexure-3) 4. The only question for consideration in this case is as to whether this procedure, which has been specially laid down by the State Government, has been adhered to by respondents 1 to 3 in making the settlement of the shop by lottery in favour of respondent 4 on 19.4.1979 (vide annexure-3) 4. Ta continue with the narration of facts, the two petitioners are the ex-licensees of foreign liquor shops situated within the town of Ranchi, admittedly, for more than 7 years. Petitioner I was admittedly placed at serial 2 on the oasis of his turn over figure and having a clean record whereas petitioner 2 was placed at serial 3. According to the admitted case of the parties again, respondent 4 was placed at serial 15 on the basis of the figures of his turn over for the three preceding years in question. According to the petitioners' case, they fulfilled the requisite qualifications laid down in the circular (annexure 2) and were entitled to be included within the 10 names which were to be selected for the purpose of lottery as envisaged by the circular whereas Respondent No. 4 was not eligible. On 19th April, 1979 the petitioner learnt that a list of only eight persons had been published a day earlier on the notice board of the Deputy Commissioner's (Collector's) office and it was Slated that the settlement of "off shop" will be done on same day by Lottery, The list of qualified persons on the notice board contained only eight names and there was nothing in it to indicate as to which of those eight persons fell under what serial number. According to the figure of his turn over so that the petitioners were not in a position to know as to whether those persons, apart from the two petitioners, were in any way eligible or qualified to be considered according to the procedure laid down in the circular (annexure 2). At the time when the lottery was being drawn, the petitioners saw that the name of respondent 4 was included in the list of eight selected persons and then they came to know that he was placed at serial no. 15 on the basis of turn over figure for the preceding three years. At the time when the lottery was being drawn, the petitioners saw that the name of respondent 4 was included in the list of eight selected persons and then they came to know that he was placed at serial no. 15 on the basis of turn over figure for the preceding three years. Unless, therefore, there was any thing to suggest that the persons placed at serials above respondent 4 in the order of the figures of their turn over had incurred any disqualification, there was a violation of the special rules or procedure prescribed for the purpose of making the settlement by draw of lottery. The petitioners assert that at the time when the lots were tried to be drawn, they came to know that respondent no. 4 was not qualified or eligible to be considered according to the procedure prescribed in circular (annexure 2) and yet his name was included in the list of candidates from amongst whom lot was to be drawn. The petitioners objected to the procedure followed by the Excise authorities at the time of the lottery but no heed was paid to their objections. At the lottery from amongst the eight persons noticed on the notice board of the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) of Ranchi the name of respondent no. 4 was selected by lottery. The grievance of the petitioners is two-fold firstly, that respondent 4 being placed at serial 15 on the basis of his turn over, he did not come within the first 10 ex-licencees within the district of Ranchi and as such he was disqualified to be considered and, secondly, that in any event if the circular purported to lay down a procedure specially in respect of the districts mentioned in paragraph kha there of wanted to persons in order of their turn over figures, who also fulfil the conditions as prescribed in paragraph Ka then there must be something to show that the ex-licensees, who were placed at serials before respondent 4, incurred such a disqualification. As a necessary corollary. As a necessary corollary. It was submitted that even if it be assumed that seven persons above respondent 4 were found to be not fulfilling the conditions laid down In paragraph 'ka' of the circular, yet the lot should have been drawn out of a list of ten persons which was a list In view of paragraph 'kha' of the circular such ten ex-licensees as fulfilling the criteria as laid down in paragraph 'kha' read with paragraph 'ka' thereof. There is nothing to show whatsoever as to why a lot was drawan from amongst the eight ex-licensees. On these grounds, the petitioners challenge the validity of settlement on the basis of lottery made in favour of respondent 4 on 19.4.79 as contained in the last two sentences of annexure 3. The petitioners thereafter applied to the Collector and Excise authorities for certified copies of a number of documents and papers which were denied to them as is evidenced by annexure 3 itself which is a true copy of an order dated 25.4.79 denying the supply of the certified copy of the documents asked for. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent 4 had not eyen a clean record so that he did not also fulfil the conditions as laid down in paragraph ‘ka’ of the circular. 6. Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand, namely, the State of Bihar, the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) and the Assistant Commissioner of Excise. Ranchi, respectively, and another counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent 4 B.D. Pachania on the other. All that is said in the counter affidavits is, to quote the language of the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3 in paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof: "5. That with reference to the statement "made in para-8 of the writ petition it is submitted that it is not required under the Rule to give serial numbers on the basis of turn over. 6. That with reference to the statement made in para-9 of the writ petition it is submitted that as stated above the inclusion of the name of the Respondent No. 4 was perfectly in order and in accordance with the instruction issued by the Government in this respect. 6. That with reference to the statement made in para-9 of the writ petition it is submitted that as stated above the inclusion of the name of the Respondent No. 4 was perfectly in order and in accordance with the instruction issued by the Government in this respect. The Respondent No.4 had been found to be person of good record." Earlier In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated with reference to the statement made in para 5 of the writ petition that according to the Government instruction contained in annexure 2 the list of first ten candidates on the basis of turn over was prepared who fulfilled the conditions, i.e. seven years' standing with good records and when the records of such ten candidates were not considered to be good, the Deputy Commissioner bad the discretion to consider and include persons having seven years' standing but quite below the first ten candidates who could qualify to be of good record. and in the instant case it was round, according to the case of the respondent, that the first ten candidates on the basis of turn over were not all considered good so that respondent no. 4 having been round to be a person of good record was also Included In the list of candidates with others. The only other denial of the assertions made in the writ petition is that no objection at the time of lottery was made by the petitioners before the authorities concerned. The counter-affidavit of respondent 4 is also, more or less, on the name lines except that it is emphasised therein that respondent 4 had a good record. 7. It is not to be found in the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3 as to which of the seven persons above respondent 4 were considered to be disqualified nor is there any explanation offered as to why a list of only eight persons was prepared and not ten as was enjoined in the circular under paragraph kha thereof. 7. It is not to be found in the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3 as to which of the seven persons above respondent 4 were considered to be disqualified nor is there any explanation offered as to why a list of only eight persons was prepared and not ten as was enjoined in the circular under paragraph kha thereof. I may state again even at the cost of repetition that paragraph 'kha' of annexure 2 says clearly that for the districts of, inter alia, Ranchi a list should be prepared of the first ten ex-licensees on the basis of their turn over figures for the three preceding years who may be fulfilling the conditions laid down in paragraph 'ka' and the 'selection of a licensee shall be made by lottery from amongst only those ten selected ex licensees". It unequivocally states that a lottery was to be drawn from amongst only those ten selected ex-licensees who fulfil the criteria or condition laid down both in paragraphs ‘kha' and "ka' The counter-affidavits are conspicuously silent as to why a list of only eight ex-licensees was prepared. Since no one has made any grievance of the procedure of settlement by way of draw of lottery, we are not called upon to consider the legality or regularity or otherwise of that system. But since a special procedure has been laid down, It is well settled that the procedure so laid down must be adhered to for the purpose of making a settlement even by drawing a lottery. 8. It is no use saying, as learned Counsel for the State and the department (respondents) has argued that since the petitioners were present at the time of the lottery, they should be estopped from challenging the validity of the settlement made in favour of respondent 4, I am afraid there is no question of estoppel in such a case. Nothing had to be done by the ex-licensees themselves. The procedure was laid down for the departmental authorities to follow. It was for them to make a list according to the rule or procedure prescribed in annexure 2, It was for them to see that a list of ten such ex-licensees was prepared as fulfilled the conditions laid down both in paragraphs kha and ka of annexure 2. The procedure was laid down for the departmental authorities to follow. It was for them to make a list according to the rule or procedure prescribed in annexure 2, It was for them to see that a list of ten such ex-licensees was prepared as fulfilled the conditions laid down both in paragraphs kha and ka of annexure 2. It was again the duty of the departmental authority to draw a lottery from amongst the only aforementioned ten ex-licensees of the list which was to be prepared according to the procedure laid down. There is no question of the petitioners taking any initiative at any stage. The question as to whether they raised any objection or not, which is controverted, is merely of academic Importance in this case, If it were a case of any active participation on the part of the petitioners in the matter of settlement, then only could the doctrine of estoppel, perhaps, be invoked. But, as the things stand, there was no question of participation of the petitioners nor was there any scope for their participation in view of the circular (annexure 2). In my view, therefore, the doctrine of estoppel has not correctly been pressed into service by learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand and respondent 4 on the other. 9. That then leads us to the main question for consideration as to whether the procedure, which was actually followed in this case, can be said to have vitiated the settlement made in favour of respondent 4, and, for a decision to be made in favour of the petitioners, we have to consider as to whether the non-preparation of a list of ten ex-licensees all envisaged by the circular (annexure 2) and the non-mention of serial number as against such of the candidates as were circulated on the notice board of the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) of Ranchi, the day previous to the drawing of the lottery i.e., on 18.4.79, vitiated the settlement made in favour of respondent 4 all being illegal. In my view, the non-observance of the special procedure laid down for settlement in annexure 2 by respondents 1 to 3 has vitiated the order of settlement in favour of respondent 4. The reasons therefor I may state hereinafter. 10. In my view, the non-observance of the special procedure laid down for settlement in annexure 2 by respondents 1 to 3 has vitiated the order of settlement in favour of respondent 4. The reasons therefor I may state hereinafter. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents have not taken exception to the position that the special procedure laid down in annexure 2 was mandatory to be followed by the Excise authorities concerned and had the force of a statutory rule as in the exigency of the situation such a special procedure had been prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of making a settlement of one shop in each district for 'off' licence for foreign liquor sale. It also could not be combated by learned Counsel for the respondents that the special procedure laid down had not in the two respects aforesaid, been strictly complied with, in that a list of ten ex-licensees was not prepared and that no mention bas been made in the counter-affidavits as to which of the seven ex-licensees above serial 15 (i.e., respondent 4) were found to be disqualified under which sub clause of paragraph ‘ka' of annexure 2. That being the position, the Collector had been invested with certain powers and duties by the State Government under the circular (annexure 2.). He must have taken care not to exceed or abuse those powers. It was his duty to keep within the limits of the authority committed to him. The Courts always expect that such acts must be done in good faith and reasonably. Since the connotation of the term" had faith" is not free from misgivings. I may analyse the concept of bad faith in this context. 11. The term "bad faith" bas been variously used to describe different concepts. These include: (1) the intentional, i.e. fraudulent or malicious misuse of powers this is commonly known as malice in fact; (ii) an abuse of power which is ultra vires, generally where a power is used for an improper purpose; and (iii) a kind of gross unreasonableness, arbitratriness, capriciousness or vexatiousness. Bad faith in the third sense aforesaid seems to be what the Courts have in mind, when in course of declining to review an exercise of discretion, usually expressed In subjective form, it is emphasised that they would, of course, intervene if there was 'bed faith'. Bad faith in the third sense aforesaid seems to be what the Courts have in mind, when in course of declining to review an exercise of discretion, usually expressed In subjective form, it is emphasised that they would, of course, intervene if there was 'bed faith'. When a discretion is committed to the executive to decide, with that discretion if bona fide exercised, no Court can interfere. All that the Courts can do is to see that the power which it is claimed to exercise is one which falls within the four corners of the discretion committed to the executive and to see that the powers are exercised in good faith. It has been said that the distinction between an erroneous decision and a failure to hear and determine according to law may be very fine. The distinction is, indeed, often impreceptible but it is an important one for where a Tribunal bas purported to determine a question but as a result of wrong approach to its duty, is held to have failed to hear and determine the question according to law, mandamus will issue to order it to make a fresh determination. Mandamus for failure to hear and determine according to law, has all along been issued only more so lately, primarily for the purpose of controlling abuse of statutory discretionary power s, but it is also issued to Tribunals that have committed errors in applying the law to the questions of fact, the assumption being that the Tribunal must have been guided by irrelevant considerations, and in such matters. It is now too late in the day to argue that there is any fine distinction between abuse of powers by Tribunal which is a quasi judicial authority and administrative body exercising purely discretionary functions. For, it has often been said and has been succinctly summed up by the Supreme Court in A.E. Krspak V. Union of India that the dividing line between an administrative rower and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. The concept or rule of law would lower its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. The concept or rule of law would lower its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Be that all it may, arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision is an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than in a quasi-judicial enquiry. 12. As I have already stated above, the relevant factors to be considered in the instant case are specified in the Government circular (annexure 2) and for the purpose of determining whether these factors to which the authorities have been called upon to have regard, have weighed with the authorities making the settlement namely, the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), respondent 2. Mr. Ramanandan Sahay Sinha, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 went to the length of submitting and wanted us to take note of the submission and that is the precise reason why I am mentioning it, that under the Excise law or under the rules framed for the purpose of making settlement of liquor shops the executive or ministerial officers of the Excise Department are fully entitled to exercise their discretion in whatsoever manner they like and such exercies of discretion, even though it be against the rules of fair play and justice, must be held to be non-justiceable. The argument has been noticed merely to be rejected. For, it is well settled that if the exercise of discretionary power, albeit of administrative or ministerial character, has been influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account, or by the disregard of relevant considerations, a court will normally hold that the power has not been validly exercised (refer to S.A. de Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd Edition. Page 297). 13. It is in this context that I find myself enlightened with some observations of the Supreme Court having important bearing on this aspect of the matter. It has been said in the case of E.P. Royappa V. state of Tamil Nadu that arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice. 13. It is in this context that I find myself enlightened with some observations of the Supreme Court having important bearing on this aspect of the matter. It has been said in the case of E.P. Royappa V. state of Tamil Nadu that arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice. So has it been said in the case of K.N. Guruswamy V. The State of Mysore, which incidentally was also a case under the Excise law that arbitrary improvisation of an 'ad hoc' procedure to mere the exigencies of a particular case is ruled out. I may remind myself here of an important and oft-quoted observation of the Supreme Court in S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India at page 1434, (paragraph 14). "In this context it is important to emphasise that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is, if a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken In accordance with the rule of law." And, again it was to meet such a situation in law that Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, at page 147, has summed up the law relating to the exercise of discretionary powers in the following words "The exercise of discretions most be reasonable Even though In act done is ostensibly in execution of a statutory power and within its letter, it will nevertheless be held not to come within the power if done otherwise than honestly and within the spirit of the enactment. A discretion is to be regulated according to known rules of law Lee V. Bude & Terrington Junction Ry. Co. and not the mere whim or caprice of the person to whom it is entrusted on the assumption that he is discreet. A discretion is to be regulated according to known rules of law Lee V. Bude & Terrington Junction Ry. Co. and not the mere whim or caprice of the person to whom it is entrusted on the assumption that he is discreet. 'When', said Lord Halsbury L.C, 'it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities’ that something is to be done according to the roles of reason and justice, not according to prive opinion: Rooke's Case, (1598) 5 Rep. 99b; according to law & not by mour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself' [Sharp V. Wakefield (1898) A.C. 173 at p. 179)." 14. Applying these tests, it has been found that examples of discretionary powers having been unlawfully exercised on irrelevant grounds are multitudinous. As I have already observed earlier, the rules of procedure having been laid down in the circular as contained in annexure 2 and they being in the nature of special rules have to be observed with the utmost puncituliousness and, admittedly, the instant case is an example of discretionary power having been exercised by respondent 2 illegally on non-consideration of relevant grounds for the reason that the Court is not in a position to know from the counter-affidavits filed in the case as to why and which of the seven ex-licensees above respondent 4 at serial 15 in order of the figures of turn over for the last 3 preceding years have been found disqualified and as to why, when the rules so enjoined peremptorily, was a list of ten ex-licensees fulfilling the conditions of both paragraph kha as well as paragraph ka not prepared. Settlement by lottery is a matter of chance. It is not necessary that the lot should have been drawn in favour of respondent 4, if there was a list of ten persons. But that again is a thing which we do not want to speculate. Settlement by lottery is a matter of chance. It is not necessary that the lot should have been drawn in favour of respondent 4, if there was a list of ten persons. But that again is a thing which we do not want to speculate. I have made that observation in order to show that it is a matter not merely of academic importance so far as the petitioners are concerned and certainly they are aggrieved by the settlement made in the manner it has been purported to be done in favour of respondent 4. Even anyone of the petitioners could have very well taken a chance to have the settlement made in his favour by the draw lottery if the list of 10 ex-licensees would have been prepared and lot drawn there from. 15. In factual position and in the light of the legal principles summed up ear her, I am constrained to allow this application, quash the settlement made in favour of respondent 4 by the operative portion of the order contained in annexure 3 and issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to make a fresh settlement strictly in accordance with the rules of procedure as prescribed in the Government circular as contained in annexure 2. In the circumstances, the parties shall boar their own costs. 16. It is worthwhile to mention that at the time when the rule was issued in this case, there had been an interim order of stay of the settlement made in fayour of respondent 4. Subsequently, however, respondent 4 entered appearance In the matter of stay and made a prayer before the Bench to vacate the order of stay on the ground that if during the pendency of this writ application he Invests any sum of money, for the purpose of the Settled shop, or any money that he may have to incur for the purpose of the settlement, he shall not claim it In the event of his success in this application. Mr. P.S. Dayal appearing for respondent 4 rightly did not make any submissions on the ground of any equitable considerations-only more so in view of his fair submission that, as a matter of fact, respondent 4 had nothing to lose except to have a licence granted in his name by depositing a licence fee Rs. Mr. P.S. Dayal appearing for respondent 4 rightly did not make any submissions on the ground of any equitable considerations-only more so in view of his fair submission that, as a matter of fact, respondent 4 had nothing to lose except to have a licence granted in his name by depositing a licence fee Rs. 300/- No equitable considerations, therefore, In favour of respondent 4 can stand in the way of disposing of this application. 17. Since the settlement wall to be made for the period from 1.4.79 to 31.3.89 and since four months have already expired and it is a matter concerning the revenue of the public Exchequer, It is directed that respondent no. 2 the Collector (Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi) shall see that a settlement is made strictly in accordance with the rules of procedure as laid down In the circular letter no. 2729 dated 31.3.19 (annexure 2) within two weeks from today. Tile learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 states that it can be done even within one week from today. But Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned Counsel for respondent no. 4, insisted that it would be fair to grant a longer time so that he may acquaint his client with regard to the procedure as laid down in annexure 2 as construed by us in this judgment. It is on this account that we think that the settlement may be made strictly in accordance with the rule of procedure within two weeks from today. 18. Let a copy of this last portion of the judgment be given to the learned Government Pleader for communicating to the learned Collector (Deputy Commissioner) of Ranchi, for doing the needful at an early date within the period specified above. I agree. Application allowed.