The subject matter of this writ petition relates to supply of country spirit to a liquor warehouse situate at a place called Nazira. The supply was to be made between May I, 1987 to April 30, 1990. The State Government of Assam on December 30, 1986 invited tenders from all concerned and as many as eight tenders were received by the Excise authorities. Two among the tenders were considered as not suitable. From the balance of six the Excise Commissioner recommended two tenders including a partnership firm. The State Government on May 25, 1987 accepted one out of the two recommended. The writ petition is filed by one who is held not suitable and in the petition the tender with whom the settlement is made by the State Government is impleaded. A firm which was recommended by the Excise Commissioner got impleaded on their own initiative as per order in Misc. Case No. 180 of 1989 on April 24, 1939 of this Court. The contention raised in the petition are two fold. The principal contention is the State Govt. considered tenders who were recommended by the Excise Commissioner and did not con­sider the other six which in law the Government was obliged to do so. Therefore, for non consideration of the six tenders the order of the State Government and the settlement arrived on May 25, 1987 can not be sustained in law. It is the duty of the State Government so it is contended next to augment revenues of the State under the provisions of the existent statute and rules the Government should have accepted the lowest of the tenders. From the record it is seen the lowest of the tenders is not preferred. The State Government in derogation of the statutory duty did not select the lowest of the tenders for settlement therefore the impugned settlement thus entered it is argued is improper and also illegal. The Commissioner of Excise tabulated all the eight tenders juxta­posed them from the stand point of rates in that Kuladhar Butta the writ petitioner is seen to have offered Rs. 11.41 p. He was not the lowest. Vijay Kumar Jasrasaria, the person with whom the contract is settled offered Rs. 11.55 p. He was not the lowest. M/S National Trading Corporation the firm who is impleaded on April 24, 1989 offered Rs. 10.70 p. The rate of the firm was not lowest. 11.41 p. He was not the lowest. Vijay Kumar Jasrasaria, the person with whom the contract is settled offered Rs. 11.55 p. He was not the lowest. M/S National Trading Corporation the firm who is impleaded on April 24, 1989 offered Rs. 10.70 p. The rate of the firm was not lowest. Manindra NathSaikia offered Us. 10.72 p. The rate offered by him among the suitable persons is ' the lowest. Ajoy Datta offered Rs. 11.45 p. He was held suitable. Ramesh Kumar Malpani offered Rs. 11.61. He was the lowest among to the eight but was found not suitable. Among the other suitable another firm M/S Sikha & Associate Pvt. Ltd. offered Rs. 12. 50. p. The firm of Himangshu Enterprises offered Rs. 10.70 p. The tender of this firm was found suitable. The Commissioner recommended the firm M/S National Trading Corporation as one of the two for acceptance by the State Government. But the firm was possessed of like settlements for warehouses at Silchar, Jorhat and North Lakhimpur or only tenders for these ware­houses were pending settlement. The State Government obviously with a view to avoid accumulation of state largesse in the hands of single individual did not choose the firm. We can not take any exception if such a view prevailed as represented by the learned Government Advocate. As of fact the State Government considered only the two tenders who were recommended. Among the suitable Himangshu Enter­prises was the lowest. But Vijoy Kumar Jasrasaria was selected as he was recommended by the Excise Commissioner. Whether the settlement with Jasrasaria in such a circumstance is valid or vitiated in law is the issue in the instant writ petition. The settlement is arrived at under the Assam Excise Act, 1889 in particular under section 19 read with Rule 93 of the Rules. The first sentence of Rule 93 reads as under : “The Excise Commissioner shall forward the tender with his recommendations to the Provincial Government which reserves to itself the right to accept tender." The sentence showing the Government may settle the business with one who is recommended. The Government have the right to consider all tenders. To say so is to speak of over all powers of the State Government. Where a licence is cancelled the State Government can settle the business without following the tender procedure is recited in the Rule 93. The Government have the right to consider all tenders. To say so is to speak of over all powers of the State Government. Where a licence is cancelled the State Government can settle the business without following the tender procedure is recited in the Rule 93. In the instant case the second sentence and the proviso are not attracted for interpretation. The question turns only on the first sentence. "93. Right of Provincial Government to grant Licence to any person-The Excise Commissioner shall forward the tenders with his recommendations to the Provincial Government which reserves to itself the right to accept on the ground that none of them, on due consideration, appear to be satisfactory they reserve also the right to grant the licence to any person who has not tendered and is considered in all respects: Provided that when a licence is cancelled or suspended during the currency of the license, the Provincial Government further reserves the right to grant the licence to any one without calling for tenders." Section 19 read with Rule 93 delineate that the Excise Commi­ssioner can recommend any one or more tenders for acceptance of the State Government. He is the highest -authority in the Excise Department. Naturally when he recommends he has to disclose reasons for his good judgment to the State Government. The trust reposed in such a high dignitary can not be held as misplaced in a statutory rule. When such a authority recommends two tenders and one among the two is selected we see no vice whatever in the course or procedure adopted in the instant case. We may elucidate in the set up of Rule 93 and reservations it is open for the Government while considering recommendations in their discretion to consider all suitable tenders. Such an option is open for the State Government which in the instant case the option was not exercised, one of the pleas in the instant case is such an option is non est for the State Government. We may advert to an incidental issue with a view to obviate controversies in future. All the counsel who appeared in the case are agreed that the words accept tender' in the first sentence in the last should receive wider interpretation - as the words are capable of narrower interpretation. The wider interpretation is to cover all of those that submitted tenders. All the counsel who appeared in the case are agreed that the words accept tender' in the first sentence in the last should receive wider interpretation - as the words are capable of narrower interpretation. The wider interpretation is to cover all of those that submitted tenders. If the words are confined to consideration to only those that are recommended by the Excise Commissioner, is obviously narrower interpretation. We hold from the stand point of the powers reserved and set up of the rule if it is to stretch the words a little to meet the ends of justice we do so and accept the wider interpretation. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the State Govern­ment is obliged to pass a speaking order to state who among the eight selected and speak out the ground on which the tender was selected. Since a speaking order is not passed the order is vitiated, in law is additionally argued. Interalia the petitioner's counsel cited a decision in Civil Rale No. 260 of 1980 (M/S Sun Beam Traders vs. State of Assam) dated February 25, 1981 and relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 1992 , M/S Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddi vs The State of Jammu & Kashmir and AIR 1986 SC 825 Chaitanya Er. vs. The State of Karoataka. From the above resume of facts it is seen the Excise Comm­issioner made two recommendations, one among the two was accepted. In our view the subject in such a stance does not call for a speaking order. The very fact one among the two is accepted speaks of the decision of the Government. That decision shows how their choice was exercised. We refer to one aspect covered by the notings of the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of Excise. We are not oblivious to the fact what is noted by the two authorities is in the notes file. Liquor is the subject matter of these notings. Liquor is an intoxicant and a fertile source of revenue to the State and source of income to many a citizen in the State. The enormity of amounts involved in liquor trade brings forth keen competition and often cut throat competition among businessmen. The rules of the game therefore have to be strictly followed. Liquor is an intoxicant and a fertile source of revenue to the State and source of income to many a citizen in the State. The enormity of amounts involved in liquor trade brings forth keen competition and often cut throat competition among businessmen. The rules of the game therefore have to be strictly followed. In such a volatile trade the Excise authorities or the State are charged to implement the legislative policy in the statutory Act and Rules. It is within the parameters of statutory rules and the legislative policy the Excise Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have to discharge their duties. In this background it is seen against Kuladhar Dutta it is recorded that he is a member of the Congress (I) party. He was opposed to agitation. His conduct, loyalty, attitude towards the present Government is to be watched and impelled .by these circumstances he was found (not in express terms) he is not suitable. These facts surely are adverse remarks, whether such remarks are called for in the instant case. Before we express further we must record our consternation in the way the extravagant manner the remarks were made against Kuladhar Dutta. The Excise Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner no doubt are high dignitaries of the Excise Department. In their high seats they do not occupy in the depart­ment seats of indulgence. The seats they occupy are seats of duty. They are not the distributors of political spoils to citizens to consider political affiliations. Therefore, it is immaterial for them whether a person in liquor business is or is not of. Congress (I) party. The conduct of the person with reference to agitation in Assam is another irrelevant consideration. The events relating to agitation are treated as determinative of issues and then loyalty is referred. Loyalty referred is not of the type of dog like fidelity but of political hue and dye which is irrelevant in liquor business. The attitude of a citizen in liquor business barring the conduct with reference to suitability in liquor business the rest is immaterial. The note speaks of attitude and conduct of political citizen and all the remarks on record are of highly tendentious and not relevant in liquor trade. The attitude of a citizen in liquor business barring the conduct with reference to suitability in liquor business the rest is immaterial. The note speaks of attitude and conduct of political citizen and all the remarks on record are of highly tendentious and not relevant in liquor trade. The suitability of a citizen is the only relevant and in that sense suitability may cover brushings in criminal law solvency in business and past performance of a businessman whether in liquor trade or otherwise. To consider political loyalty and attitude to the Govern­ment in power in our view are least relevant. We are not losing sight of the fact what is recorded is an inter-departmental communication and is not intended for public consumption. However, much we may extrapolate to minimise the effect of such observations it is difficult to wash out the effect these aspects had on the minds of the Excise Commissioner. Every citizen in this country perhaps has to choose a party. The Excise Department or the Excise officials cannot and are not the guardians of the citizens to scrutinise the political conduct of a citizen however high the officials , may be as the subject of political loyalty is beyond their ken. We would have considered the implication of the subject more in detail as we accept the contention of the State Government that they have restricted their option among the persons recommended and if that is so these notes ex facie did not influence their verdict. We however cannot but record that if the contention is that all tenders are to be considered yet we see all -tenderers are not impleaded in the writ petition. That is rather curious. See AIR 1963 SC 786 in this regard. To sum up we hold the State Government is entitled to re­strict consideration to the persons recommended by the Excise Commissioner in the first circle as it is shown in the instant case. If persons recommended are not to be accepted persons who did not submit tenders may fall in for consideration which we call the third circle. Persons who fall in the second circle are those that are covered by the second sentence of Rule 93 and as long they are riot eliminated as not satisfactory negotiation with the third circle 'persons cannot be held. Persons who fall in the second circle are those that are covered by the second sentence of Rule 93 and as long they are riot eliminated as not satisfactory negotiation with the third circle 'persons cannot be held. It is not necessary to consider the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1972 SC 2281 , M/S. Produce Exchange corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Excise in this regard as in that case it 4S-interpreted the State Government can negotiate simultaneously with persons in the second and third circle with a view to augment their revenue. That, is not the issue which we have considered! in this case. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the writ petition. No costs. H.K. Sema, J.-I agree.