JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - Writ Petition No. 2776 of 1989, K.K. Chopra v. State of V.P. and others was decided by us by judgment and order dated 27th April, 1989. Thereafter a review application was moved by the private parties who were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition on the ground that they were not given hearing. There is nothing on record to indicate that in, fact they were given hearing though the case was heard under the impression that parties are represented. They have preferred writ petition as well as application for recalling the said order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said private parties stated that the writ petition may be treated as review application. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to advance arguments on merits indicating that the order is liable to be recalled. The parties counsel were heard on merits along with Writ Petition No. 2776 of 1989, which was connected with this writ petition. 2. As the counsel for the private parties were not heard, our judgment dated 27th April, 1989 is recalled and we proceed to decide the case again after hearing all the counsel for each and every party in these writ petitions. 3. Auction for 36 liquor shops in the city of Lucknow took place on 23-2-1989 and 24-2-1989. Prior to holding auction a notice was issued by the Excise Commissioner dated 24-1-1989 in which it was mentioned that efforts will be made to obtain reasonable price and wherever it is possible that independent bidders can form a group, then efforts should be made to auction the shop group-wise, because individual auction may cause loss of revenue. It was also mentioned in the notice that the shops will be auctioned individually or in groups and that th of the amount of the annual licence fee shall be deposited in the form of security of which ?rd amount will be deposited immediately after the auction on the fall of hammer in cash and remaining ?rd is to he deposited within ten days either in cash or in the shape of fixed deposit receipts and this rule shall be strictly followed. In case amount is not deposited or the shop is not run, then such persons will not be allowed to get licence for a period of five years and they can he prosecuted and in case amount is not deposited within time and the licence is issued, it will be deemed to have been cancelled and fresh auction shall take place at the risk of the bidder. 4. Prior to holding of the auction, general notice was also issued fixing date and regarding amount which is to be deposited at the fall of the hammer and thereafter it was notified that the auction will take place on 23-2-1989 and 24-2-1989 for the year 1989-90 and the amount as mentioned was to be deposed. 5. The petitioner, who was holding certain licences in the previous year also participated in the auction which took place on 23-2-1989. The petitioner also obtained solvency certificate to the extent of Rs. 15.00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs). On 23-2-1989 the auction took place shopwise and the petitioner's hid in respect of three shops was the highest. He also singed the hid sheet. But without finalising these bids, it was announced that the auction will he held sector-wise and it seems that the authorities were of the view that the auction had not fetched more revenue than was expected. The decision to auction shops sectorwise was taken then and there and those persons who had opportunity to make arrangement for more solvency certificate or join with one or two other persons formed group. 6. In the counter affidavit it has been averred that the Collector decided that the auction will be held groupwise as the bids offered in the individual auction was wholly inadequate, the petitioners who moved application for setting aside the order, joined hands and the opposite parties offered the highest hid amounting to Rs. 7.25.00,000/- (Rupees seven crores and twenty five lacy only) which was accepted. Although they were required to deposite Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand) in two instalments, according to the petitioner no amount was deposited on the fall of the hammer or within ten days and yet they were allowed to run the business as licencee. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector it has been stated that the petitioner's solvency certificate was only up to Rs. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector it has been stated that the petitioner's solvency certificate was only up to Rs. 15,000,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs) and he could have offered his bid only up to Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lass) only in the groupwise auction and the lowest licence fee in the groupwise auction is Rs. 41.00,000/- for group No. 6 Indira Nagar and Group No. 7 Amausi. Learned counsel for the State when asked to give the details of amounts which were deposited stated that the figures will be given on the next date which were subsequently supplied. 7. The private parties in the writ petition which was treated as Review Application (hereinafter known as applicants have stated that they deposited about 1.20 crores as security in case and bank guarantee. It has further been stated that further Rs. 5 lacs have been deposited as licence fee for the month of April, 1989 though the date of the same has not been mentioned. At another place they have stated that it was the practice that by 1st April the security money must be deposited as required under the Excise Rules. It has further been stated that the Rule of depositing of security money at the time of auction in the Amendment Rules of 1984 were also contained in the Rules contained in the U.P. Excise Manual. They have pleaded that the said rule is directory. It has further been stated that apart from the above, there are several reasons for not adherering to the rule of deposit permitting the licencees to deposit later on the security money after taking good amount on the date of auction and they deposited Rs. 49,30,000.00 on the date of the auction. 8. In the affidavit filed by the State Government after closure of arguments a chart showing summary of deposits of ?th Advance of Fl. 5 shops of Lucknow District has been appended. From the said chart it is clear that the amount which was to be deposited on the fall of hammer was actually not deposited in respect of the auction in dispute and was deposited in instalments and the total amount which was to be deposited within ten days was deposited even beyond ten days. From the said chart it is clear that the amount which was to be deposited on the fall of hammer was actually not deposited in respect of the auction in dispute and was deposited in instalments and the total amount which was to be deposited within ten days was deposited even beyond ten days. When this judgment was ready for pronouncement the applicants filed an affidavit on 9th May, 1989 with the result it resulted in rewriting the judgment to said context. In it they stated that the writ petition was filed after two months and it was not maintainable and reference to unreported Full Bench decision of this Court against which S.L.P. was dismissed, was also made (Ajit Kumar Jaiswal v. Excise Commissioner. Writ Petn. No. 1714 of 1984 decided on 14-9-1984) in support of their case that the Statutory Rules of 1984 are directory in nature and authorities concerned had discretion to accept beyond the time prescribed. In the counter affidavit also it has not been averred that amount was deposited by them in time but it has been stated that subsequently the amount was deposited by them within permission of Excise Authorities. Thus, it was rather admitted that the Rule regarding deposit of th amount on the fall of hammer and rest within ten days was not adhered to and was followed in breach. Before considering that plea it will he appropriate to consider the plea that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petition as he was not a bidder in groupwise and sectorwise auction. It is to he noticed that the auction first took place on 23-2-1989 and the petitioner's bid was accepted and he produced solvency certificate in respect of three shops. In the previous year, he was licences in the district of Lucknow. Besides, in the auction notice it was not mentioned that the auction will take place sectorwise nor it was stated that in case it was found that the bid was not adequate, then in the continuation auction will take sectorwise. The petitioner obviously was ready for bidding for individual shop and had made no arrangement singly or with other persons to make hid jointly for sectorwise auction. The petitioner, thus, was not a stranger and was prejudiced by sectorwise auction which took place in quick succession. The petitioner obviously was ready for bidding for individual shop and had made no arrangement singly or with other persons to make hid jointly for sectorwise auction. The petitioner, thus, was not a stranger and was prejudiced by sectorwise auction which took place in quick succession. He was a person 'aggrieved' learned counsel for the applicant contended that the writ petition having been filed after two months of the auction and after grant of licence, the same is liable to he dismissed on the ground of delay calculated to unsettle what has been settled after considerable days. After arguments were closed he produced before us a Division Bench decision given at Allahabad dismissing Writ Petition after one month of the auction taking place on the same date at Allahabad on the ground of delay which in view of the Court in that case disentitled the petitioner, one of the participants, to get any relief from the Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment so pronounced was in Ajai Singh v. District Excise Officer and was dismissed on 31st March, 1989 (Though the number of Writ Petition gives No. 1 of 1989, the same is obviously incorrect and casts a doubt over the correctness of the copy as the writ petition filed by 24th February, 1989 cannot be the first petition of the year). In the said case, the Division Bench did not enter into the question as to whether Rules are mandatory or directory and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay of filing of the Writ Petition after one month of the auction when licence had started working. The Court did not consider the case before it in which it should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. Obviously, the said case was never heard twice. It is not known as to whether in the said case too from shopwise auction it was changed to groupwise or sectorwise auction resulting in elimination of some of the aspirants. It is not known when the petitioner to the said writ petition gained knowledge that provision of law regarding deposit of money has been followed in breach. The writ petition was filed when it was found that despite failure to deposit money in time, licences have been granted and licensees are or have started business. It is not known when the petitioner to the said writ petition gained knowledge that provision of law regarding deposit of money has been followed in breach. The writ petition was filed when it was found that despite failure to deposit money in time, licences have been granted and licensees are or have started business. In view of the facts and development in this case, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that petition he dismissed on the ground of delay. There being complaint of violation of the Rules affecting civil rights and claim to property by individuals, interference can be made in this matter being of public interest affecting State revenues too. Its adjudication cannot he refused on the ground that the person who has filed the writ petition had no full interest in the matter. As such, the preliminary objection of the private parties is overruled. Reference may be made to some of the relevant Rules : (1984 Amendment) "2. (a) A defaulter of the Excise revenue shall not he allowed to participate in the auction." "4(6) The final acceptance of any bid is subject to the sanction of the Excise Commissioner, which in its turn is subject to the decision of the State Government in appeal or revision, if any." "4(8) A sum equal to one fourth of the bid offered by the highest bidder shall be paid in advance as security for due performance of the contract out of which two third shall he paid immediately on the fall of hammer in cash. If the Collector recommends the second highest hid for sanction by the Excise Commissioner, the second highest bidder will also be required to deposit the security amount as mentioned above." "4(9) The balance one-third amount of security shall be paid by the auction purchaser within ten days of the auction either in cash or in fixed deposit receipts obtained from a Scheduled Bank for the period of licence duly pledged to the Collector or in the form of Bank guarantee valid till the final settlement of all claims and dues of the Government in respect of auctioned shop. Cup (10) The licence fees shall he payable in such equal instalments as are specified in the licence. Cup (10) The licence fees shall he payable in such equal instalments as are specified in the licence. In case the payment of due instalment is not made by 20th day of the month the same shall he recovered from the security deposit of the licencee. "The licencee will have to make good the shortfall in the security deposit within ten days of the receipt of notice of such recovery. Any failure to make good the shortfall will render the licence liable to re-auction at the risk of the licencee and any shortfall shall he recoverable from his remaining security and the balance, if any, shall he recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. If a licencee is in arrears of licence fee he shall not he issued intoxicant for sale for which he holds licence." 4(11). In case of default to pay the security deposit as mentioned in sub-rules (8) to (10) within the time specified the auction and in case a licence has been issued the licence shall stand cancelled and the deposit, if any, shall be forfeited to the Government. Re- auction or alternative arrangements shall he made at the risk of the original auction purchaser. All monitory losses resulting from re-auction or alternative arrangement or from the licence remaining unsold for want of bidders shall he recoverable from the original auction purchaser as arrears of land revenue." "7(5)(b) where no reason to the contrary exists the highest hid, if adequate should he accepted. But this provision is subject to two important considerations. Firstly, care should he taken to exclude bids obviously in excess of fair market value of the licence or farm or which are the result of speculation or rivarly. The acceptance of such bids even if the bidders fulfil their engagements is immediately injurious to the interests of the consumer and ultimately to the Excise revenue, This precaution is particularly necessary in the case of farming contracts which are worked by means of sub-settlements made by the farmer. Secondly, it is necessary to guard against the acceptance of bids which may have the effect of constituting an overt or covert monopoly against the acceptance as licence holders or undesirable persons of doubtful solvency. Secondly, it is necessary to guard against the acceptance of bids which may have the effect of constituting an overt or covert monopoly against the acceptance as licence holders or undesirable persons of doubtful solvency. No person whose name appears upon the district or State defaulters list shall he allowed to bid." "5(8)(a) If any person whose hid has been accepted at the auction fails to furnish the requisite security depositor fails to complete within stipulated time the required formalities, the Collector may sell the contract immediately or on any subsequent date fixed by him." "5(8)(b) The defaulting purchaser shall he debarred from bidding for the same or any other licence within the period of five years from the date of default and may with the prior sanction of the Collector he prosecuted under Section 185 of the Indian Penal Code but in every case the defaulter shall he called upon in to show cause why he should not he prosecuted for the said offence before he is actually prosecuted thereunder. A consolidated list of defaulting purchasers along with their addresses debarred under the sub-rule from participating in the auction shall he circulated by the Excise Commissioner to all the Collectors before the date of auction every year." "5(9) Where no reason to the contrary exists, the highest bid, if adequate, should he accepted. The officer conducting the sales shall however record the reasons for not accepting the highest hid if he accepts the second highest hid. All such bids, shall, however, the reported to the Excise Commissioner. The Excise Commissioner's decision whether a hid is adequate or not shall be final." 9. A perusal of Rule 519) indicates that the highest bid is to he accepted. The officer conducting the auction has to record the reasons for not accepting the highest bid and he shall report the matter to the Excise Commissioner whose decision whether a bid is adequate or not shall he final subject to its revision by the State Government. It is true that no one has got fundamental right to trade in liquor business and that it is the exclusive privilege of the State to grant licence. It is true that no one has got fundamental right to trade in liquor business and that it is the exclusive privilege of the State to grant licence. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 : ( AIR 1987 SC 251 ) it has been observed (at p. 279 of AIR) : "There is no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor. The State under its regulatory power has the power to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation in intoxicants its manufacture, storage, export, sale and possession. No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot he compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor.....The State cannot ride roughshod over the requirement of that article." It was further observed : "However, having regard to the nature of the trade or business, the Court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State Government for grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor. The Court would in view of the inherently pernicious nature of the commodity, allow a large measure of latitude to the State Government in determining its policy of regulating manufacture and trade in liquor. Moreover, the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy. In complex economic matters every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or 'trial and error' method and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any right or prior consideration or on the application of any strait-jacket formula. The Court must while adjudging the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or 'play in the joints' to the executive. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide." 10. Although the Court should be slow to interfere, but if the action is arbitrary, interference can be made. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that that after auction if it was discovered that the same has not fetched expected price and in the interest of revenue it will be desirable to put shop to auction groupwise, at least a revised notice giving even minimum possible time should have been published with certain formalities so that the bidders could have made arrangement and other intending bidders or group of bidders could also have entered the arena. The same not having been done it was against law and was arbitrary action prejudicing the petitioner and others. It is within the jurisdiction of the State Government or the authority concerned to take a decision whether the auction would he shopwise or groupwise. The intending bidders were apprised of the same from the very beginning. Even if it was not mentioned in the auction notice, the same could not be said to have taken the parties by surprise and caused serious prejudice. The auction on this ground cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, null or void. The petitioner's plea in this behalf is to fail. 11. Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 4 of the Statutory Rules provides that in case of default to pay the security deposit as mentioned in sub-rules (8) to (10), within the time specified, the auction, and in case a licence has been issued the licence shall stand cancelled and the deposit, if made, shall be forfeited to the Government and re-auction or alternative arrangements shall be made at the risk of the original auction purchasers. For non-deposit of amount within time, even the Excise-Commissioner or State Government, who can accept or reject higher bid and decide mode of grant of licence, have not been conferred with powers to relax or waive the rules once the auction has taken place. For non-deposit of amount within time, even the Excise-Commissioner or State Government, who can accept or reject higher bid and decide mode of grant of licence, have not been conferred with powers to relax or waive the rules once the auction has taken place. The consequence has been provided in the Rules that the auction is to stand cancelled and in case licence had been issued, the licence shall also stand cancelled and the deposit shall stand forfeited. The consequence so provided are penal and mandatory in reason. Rule 7(8) provides that if any person whose bid has been accepted at the auction fails to furnish the requisite deposit or fails to complete within stipulated time the required formalities, the Collector may sell the contract immediately or on any subsequent date fixed by him. In Sub-rules (8)(12) of Rule 7 it is provided that the defaulting purchaser shall be debarred from bidding for the same or any other licence within the period of five years from the date of default. The debarring of defaulter is a necessary consequence and is penal in nature and no one has power to condone or waive the same. In rule 7(8) although the word 'may' has been used, the word 'may' gives option to the Collector either to sell it immediately or on a subsequent date. The Rule as it is does not confer power on the Collector to waive the rule or any other rule and not to sell the contract. It is also to he noted that sometimes the word 'may' means 'shall' and vice versa. Rule 7(8)(b) which provides a penalty that the defaulter bidder shall he debarred from bidding for a period of five years, leaves no option with the opposite parties to waive or relax the Rule and if any such practice is being followed by the department against the rules, the same is in violation of provisions of law. 12. On behalf of the applicants, it was contended that the Rules are directory and not mandatory and in this connection reference to the Rules contained in Excise Manual was made. The old rules will apply only to the extent the amendments of 1984 Rules are not applicable. 12. On behalf of the applicants, it was contended that the Rules are directory and not mandatory and in this connection reference to the Rules contained in Excise Manual was made. The old rules will apply only to the extent the amendments of 1984 Rules are not applicable. Reference has been made by them to a Division Bench decision of this Bench in Special Appeal No. 88 of 1961, Ram Autar v. The District Excise Officer, Lucknow and others decided on 30th March, 1962, ILR (1962) 2 All. 409. In the Full Bench decision in Ajit Kumar's case (supra) referred to by the applicants, the same cause was considered. The Full Bench was constituted because of some conflict in Ram Autar's case (supra) and the case of Manmender Singh v. Excise Commissioner. U.P. 1982 UPTC 1030. Manmender Singh's case (supra) was later on decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Ram Autar's case (supra) the Division Bench was concerned with the Rules as they existed prior to the year 1962 when these rules were not statutory and were in the nature of executive instructions. The Rules became statutory in that very year. Till before the rules were not statutory. Limitation or prohibition and the discretion of the Excise Authorities was wider than when rules became statutory. In the said case ?th of the amount was accepted subsequently and may it be because though shops were earlier notified to be auctioned separately, but they were linked together subsequently and the State condoned the delay in accepting the amount. So far as paying or depositing of ?th of the annual fee was concerned and the rule was practically the same as Rule 473(6) which was under consideration. The Bench held that because of failure to deposit the amount the sale will not be void and this provision was made for the benefit of State and if there was any non-compliance, there was not provision for making the sale void. According to the Bench, the purpose of the rule was to put the purchaser on risk for cancellation of the hid. According to the Bench, the purpose of the rule was to put the purchaser on risk for cancellation of the hid. After quoting Rules 357(7) and 358(8), now rules 373(6) and 374(1) respectively, the Bench held that failure of an auction purchaser to deposit the required amount forthwith results in entitling the Collector to cancel the sale and hold a sale again and further to recover the deficient amount from and as this provision was made to save the interest of the State the amount could be accepted subsequently and delay in depositing it could be condoned. In the said case the purchaser subsequently deposited the amount and the State accepted the same. The Bench was, thus, of the view that it was open for the purchaser to deposit the amount subsequently and the State could condone the delay and accept it and the rules were not mandatory and the authority concerned had power to waive the rigour of the rules in this behalf. In Ajit Kumar's case (supra). the Full Bench distinguished Ram Avtar's (supra) case as the same was of a period when the rules were non-statutory. In Ajit Kumar's case (supra) the amount was sought to be deposited in cash plus Bank draft which at that hour could not be cashed, the bid having been accepted after Banking hours. The cash was being counted but the entire amount could not be counted because of rain and light failure but the counting was completed next morning and the Bank draft was also encashed on that date and amount was paid. The purchaser, thus, was possessed of entire money required to be deposited and process for counting the same had already started that day. The Full Bench was concerned with the Rules to that stage and not thereafter upto the period by which the balance was to be deposited. The Full Bench held that Rules 373(6) and 374(1) are mandatory so far as capacity, position and readiness of bidder to deposit or pay advance money upto the conclusion of the sale for the day is concerned (Emphasis supplied) but it is not so far as its payment or deposit under impossible or exceptional circumstances beyond the control of bidder are concerned and in that event it will not be a default and authorities have power to accept money even afterwards at the earliest. A thing will be deemed to be done within time if the doer was fully willing and equipped to perform the same within time the performance of which is made impossible by nature or some other intervening circumstances beyond the control and it will also be deemed to have been done within time if impossible of same is done without delay the moment impossible or exceptional condition creating a blockade in the way of performance comes to an end. The two Judges were more emphatical in holding that the Rule regarding deposit of amount is mandatory. 13. The position in the instant case is quite different. The bidder were not ready with the entire amount required to be deposited on the fall of hammer either in cash or otherwise or both and there was no request by them for extension of time. No impossible situation existed and the entire amount was not offered the next day and there was absolutely no situation which could be stretched to the extent of deemed compliance of Rules. 14. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on unreported decision of Division Bench of this Court holding that the Amended Rules are directory and the deposit can be made and accepted beyond the period fixed by the Rule. The Division Bench in Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. (Writ Petn. No. 5188 of 1984 decided on 23-11-1984) relying on Full Bench decision in Ajit Kumar Jaiswal's case (supra) summarily dismissed the writ petition reading in it that in spite of time having been prescribed it was open to the Excise authorities to extend the time for making the deposit. It appears that the entire judgment of Full Bench was not placed before the Division Bench deciding Arun Kumar's case (supra) and specifically that part by which it was held that so far capacity, position and readiness of bidder to deposit or pay the advance money on the conclusion of bid is concerned, the Rules are mandatory and money can he accepted when deposit or payment could not be made because of impossible or exceptional circumstances beyond the control of bidder and the money or payment in such event can be accepted thereafter at the earliest opportunity. Apart from Rule 7(8)(a) no other Rule of the Amended Rule of 1984 was noticed by the Division Bench as is evident from its judgment. Apart from Rule 7(8)(a) no other Rule of the Amended Rule of 1984 was noticed by the Division Bench as is evident from its judgment. As we are relying on the Full Bench decision, as such, the case need not be referred to Larger Bench on the point the Full Bench decision not having been looked into completely and correctly. 15. The Statutory Rules coming into force in 1984, (Amendment Rules) are mandatory and would prevail over the Rules contained in Excise Manual which are to be read along with these Rules. The Rules so framed are also in the interest of State revenue and as such are not to be by-passed. The discretion in the higher authorities if any, in the matter of Excise contract or licence cannot he exercised arbitrarily or in mala fide manner or discriminatory manner between the aspirants at their will. Such a discretion is judicially reviewable. In order to do fairness and justice and root out the possibilities or arbitrary and discriminatory action, pick and choose, favouritism, neoptism and creation of monopoly in the hands of few opening room for collecting money by way of loan for paying the advance and other amounts by granting licence etc., the Rules, it appears, were given mandatory character at least upto the date of deposit of amount by the bidder within time prescribed is concerned, which is followed by certain penal consequences in case of non-compliance. No right of waiver or condonation has been conferred upon the Collector in respect of these Rules. The Commissioner or the State Government have power to accept the highest bid or not to accept the highest hid as it is the exclusive privilege of the State, but once a particular procedure has been adopted and though the bid accepted is to fall they cannot intervene at that stage for waving the Rule in the interest of an aspirant not correlated with augmentation of State Revenue instead of resorting to reauction. 16. In view of what has been said above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the opposite parties Nos. 16. In view of what has been said above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 are directed not to give effect or recognise the auction or the licence which has been granted in pursuance of the auction which took place on 2.3-2-1989 in respect of shops which are the subject-matter of dispute in this writ petition and will not allow such persons to carry on the business. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 are also directed to hold fresh auction expeditiously. The enquiry as suggested in judgment requires to be made. The order of local arrangement for the running of said shops in accordance with law as was ordered earlier and also in the review application will continue till fresh auction does not take place. 17. There, will be no order as to costs.