JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The Petitioner whose, application for grant of foreign liquor licence was not allowed, has prayed for a direction to quash licence granted in favour of the opp. party No. 2. The Petitioner carries on business in foreign liquor at Rayagada on the basis of licence granted in his favour for the year. 1987-88. The Collector Koraput, in accordance with the Executive instructions issued by the Government in that bebalf, invited applications for grant of foreign liquor licence by a notice dated 11-1-1988 (vide Annexure-2): The notice stipulated that the applications in the prescribed form from the intending applicants should reach the Collector on or before 25-1-1988 along with the up-to-date clearance certificate of Sales Tax and Income Tax, Solvency Certificate and security deposit of Rs. 2000/- in shape of Bank draft pledged to the Collector Koraput. The Petitioner submitted his application complying with all the requirements of the said notice on 25-1-1988 and as no intimation was receive by him, he made enquiry in the once of the Collector, Koraput and came to learn that orders have already been passed to grant such licence in respect' of Rayagada-I in favour of the opp. party No. 2. The Petitioner claims to be the only applicant who bad Bled his application in time along with all other necessary requisites prescribed in the notice, whereas the opp. party No. 2 filed his application date beyond the stipulated period. i.e., on 27-1-1988. It has been alleged that the application of opp. party No. 2 was incomplete having been filed beyond the prescribed date and therefore, was not eligible to be considered for grant of the licence. The entertainment of the application of opp. party No. 2 arid the grant of licence in pursuance thereof has been alleged to be improper without jurisdiction and mala fide on the part of the concerned authorities, as a consequence of which, the Petitioner has been deprived of the licence which he is otherwise entitled to. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the Petitioner prays for issue of writ for quashing the order of the granting the licence in favour of the, opp. party other consequential reliefs. 2. This Court issued notice to opp. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the Petitioner prays for issue of writ for quashing the order of the granting the licence in favour of the, opp. party other consequential reliefs. 2. This Court issued notice to opp. party, No. 2 to appear and show cause as to why the prayer made in the writ application should not be granted or such other order may not be passed as the Court may deem fit and proper indicating therein that the writ application is likely to be disposed of at the stage of admission. The learned Additional Standing Counsel received the notice on behalf of the Collector, Koraput (opp. party No. 1) and was granted time to obtain instructions in the matter. A preliminary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the opp. party No. 1, stating that the Petitioner submitted his application in time whereas opp. party No. 2 submitted his application on 27-1-1988 i.e., a date subsequent to the last date of submissions of the applications. It has been further stated therein that both the applications of the Petitioner as well as opp. party No. 2 were scrutinised and after an enquiry the application of the Petitioner was recommended to the Commissioner of Excise for consideration and onward transmission to the State Government, who is the competent authority to grant licence-privilege for retail sale of foreign liquor u/s 22 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act 1915 for necessary action. The Government Order bearing No. Ex. CB 46/87 annexed to the counter affidavit is said to have been received by the Collector directing to grant licence privilege for retail sale of foreign liquor in Rayagada-I Excise area in favour of the opp. party No. 2. in pursuance of which the Collector issued the licence in his favour. In the said counter affidavit, it has been further stated' that the reasons for which the State Government granted licence in favour of the opp. party No. 2 is neither known to the, deponent nor any material in support thereof is available in the office of the Collector, Koraput (o. p. No. 1). In this back ground the Petitioner filed an application to amend the writ application by adding State of Orissa represented by the Secretary Revenue and Excise authorities in No. 2 and for Deptt.. In this back ground the Petitioner filed an application to amend the writ application by adding State of Orissa represented by the Secretary Revenue and Excise authorities in No. 2 and for Deptt.. as O. P. No. 3 and adding one paragraph to the effect that the State of Orissa on extraneous consideration directed grant of licence in favour of the opp. party No. 2, for which reason the order passed granting the licence in favour of opp. party No. 2 is illegal discriminatory and based on oblique motive on considerations not germane to the issue of grant of licence. A further prayer was made to quash the order of the Government dated 31-3-1988 directing the grant of licence in favour of the opp. party No. 2. The said application was allowed and opp. party No. 3 was given opportunity: to show cause against the allegations made. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. party No. 3, it has been stated that though it is true that the application of opp. party No. 2 was received by the Collector beyond the date fixed for receipt of the applications yet there is no legal bar to accept the applications filed by any applicant beyond time, if it otherwise merits consideration. A copy of the executive instructions issued by the Board of Revenue annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-A/3 was relied upon to justify that the applications received after the date can be accepted if the Collector is satisfied that there is reasonable cause for the delay in submission of the applications. Besides, it has been urged that the Petitioner cannot claim for grant of exclusive privilege for retail sale of foreign liquor as a matter of right and the State Government has got the power to grant such licence to any person on such conditions and for such period as it may think fit, which cannot be questioned by the Petitioner. The opp. party No. 2 though entered appearance pursuant to the notice did not file any return. Learned Counsel appearing for him argued the case at length on the basis of the facts available on record justifying the 'grant of licence in favour of the opp. party No. . 2. 4. In the context of the facts stated in the counter affidavit of opp. Learned Counsel appearing for him argued the case at length on the basis of the facts available on record justifying the 'grant of licence in favour of the opp. party No. . 2. 4. In the context of the facts stated in the counter affidavit of opp. parties 1 & 3 the Petitioner filed an application to direct the opp. parties to produce the Government file relation to the grant of foreign liquor licences for the year 1988-89 along with the original of Annexure-A which is the order of the Government communicated to the Excise Commissioner directing to grant foreign liquor licence in favour of various persons for different areas, a list of which has been appended thereto. The said application was allowed by this Court and the records were also received for reference in this case. There is no dispute that in the notice issued by the Collector Koraput dated 11-1-1988 (Annexure-2) it was stipulated that the application in the prescribed form for grant of foreign liquor licence for the year 1988-89 should be filed on or before 5-1-88 and that the Petitioner's application was filed in time whereas the application of the opp. party No. 2 was filed 2 days beyond the prescribed date i.e. on 27-1-1988. It was argued by the learned,counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the application .submitted by the opp. party No. 2 should not have been considered by the authorities as the same was beyond time. The learned Counsel appearing for the opp. party No. 2 vehemently argued that it is the State Government who is the authority vested with the power to grant the aforesaid licence and not the Collector and, therefore, the notice of the Collector being a date for submission of the applications was unauthorised and in that view, of the matter, the application of opp. party No. 2 cannot be said to be beyond ti me and specially when the State Government who is the authority to grant licence accepted the same and considered it on its own merits. party No. 2 cannot be said to be beyond ti me and specially when the State Government who is the authority to grant licence accepted the same and considered it on its own merits. The aforesaid argument is not accepted in view of the fact that a set of executive instructions for inviting applications for grant of foreign liquor licence issued by the Board of Revenue, Orissa was approved by the State Government and was circulated to all the Collectors, a copy of which has been appended to the counter affidavit of O. P. No. . 3 as,Annexure-A/3. The records called for from the opp. parties in connection with the grant of such licence and produced in Court also support the aforesaid position. Clause 4 of the said executive instructions provides that any person desiring to obtain a licence should apply for the same to the Collector within the date prescribed in the notice. And all applications received after the date should not normally be accepted unless the Collator if satisfied that there has been reasonable cause for the delay in the submission of the application. It is therefore clear that it was the concerned Collector, who had been authorised by the State Government to fix a date for submission of applications in the notice to be published inviting applications and he was also empowered to accept the applications beyond the date so fixed, if he is satisfied that there exists reasonable cause for the delay. The learned Counsel appearing for the Collector, Koraput fairly conceded that the Collector has not condoned the delay in submission of the application of opp. party. No. 2 and in the return filed on behalf of the Collector, it has been stated that it was the application of the Petitioner which was recommended by the Collector to the Commissioner of Excise, Orissa, Cuttack for consideration and onward transmission to the State Government for necessary action. Mr. Mohanty learned Counsel appearing for opp. party No. 2 further argued that even if the Collector had not condoned the delay in filing of the application by opp. party No. 2, the State Government did condone the delay being the statutory authority vested with the power to grant licence. It was also argued in that context that the State Government who delegated the power to the Collector to condone the delay under Annexure-A/3 could itself exercise that power. party No. 2, the State Government did condone the delay being the statutory authority vested with the power to grant licence. It was also argued in that context that the State Government who delegated the power to the Collector to condone the delay under Annexure-A/3 could itself exercise that power. We need not go into the legal aspects of the aforesaid argument as the Government record produced before us does not show that the Government had in fact exercised the power in condoning the delay in submission of the application of opp. party No. 2. Unless the delay is condoned the application of opp. party No. 2 was not eligible for consideration. 5. It goes by admission that the application of the Petitioner was recommended by opp. party No. 1 for consideration, whereas that of opp. party No. 2 was not recommended. No reason has been assigned by the State Government as to why the recommendation of the Collector was not accepted. Not only that the application of opp. party No. 2 filed beyond time was taken into consideration without condoning the delay but nothing at an has been stated as to why the licence was ordered to be granted in favour of the opp. party No. 2 in preference to the opp. party No. 1. It is no doubt correct to say that it is the discretionary power of the State Government to grant foreign liquor licence u/s 22 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act but when the authority has misconceived or misapplied its discretionary power in complete disregard to the relevant considerations or where there is a complete failure in exercise of such discretion a rule of mandamus may be issued to compel the authorities to act in accordance with law vide Chingleput Bottlers Vs. Majestic Bottling Company, . 6. The facts detailed above lead us to the irresistible conclusion that the State Government has misdirected itself in taking into consideration the application of opp. party No. 2 which was incompetent having been filed late and ignoring to consider the application of the Petitioner which was recommended for consideration by the Collector. We therefore, quash the order of the Government dated 31-3-1988 so far as it directs grant of licence in favour of opp. party No. 2 which was incompetent having been filed late and ignoring to consider the application of the Petitioner which was recommended for consideration by the Collector. We therefore, quash the order of the Government dated 31-3-1988 so far as it directs grant of licence in favour of opp. party No. 2 and direct the State Government to reconsider the recommendation of the Collector in favour of the Petitioner and dispose of the question of grant of foreign liquor licence in accordance with law. The period of licence having already commenced from 1-4-1988, we would further direct the State Government to take final decision in the matter within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There would however, be no order as to costs. P. C.. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed