S. N. Phukan, J.— This is the second time that the writ petitioner has approached this Court on the same subject matter viz contract for whole tale supply of potable alchohol/rectified spirit (Grade I) in the excise warehouse at Tinsukia for the period 1.6.90 to 31.5.93. By a judgment and order dated 7.7.90 passed in Civil Rule Nos. 1082, 1095, 1136, 1137 and 1156 of 1990, this Court set aside the settlement order in favour of the petitioner and consequently the Commissioner of Excise, respondent No.3 issued fresh notice inviting tenders for grant of the instant contract. 10 tenders were submitted giving different rates. Petitioner quoted Rs. 9.25 per London Proof Litre (for short LPL) whereas the respondent No. 4 quoted Rs. 8.95. Petitioner, however, specifically mentioned that he was willing to negotiate the rate quoted by him in the tender. On 8.2.91 respondent No. 2 viz Secretary of the Excise Depart­ment addressed a letter to respondent No. 4 asking him whether he was willing to accept the contract @ Rs. 8.76 per LPL and by reply dated 11.2.91, respondent No. 4 accepted this rate whereafrer the settlement order was issued in his favour. As the petitioner and other tenderers were excluded,, the present petition has been filed. 2. Respondent No. 4 filed an affidavit-in oppositi n denying the allegations made in the petition stating that the settlement in his favour was legally and validly made. After Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner made his submission before us, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State Govt. and its officials which was sworn by the Under Secretary to the Govt. in the Excise Department. In the said affidavit it has been stated that the State Go-1. after considering the report of the Commissioner of Excise, respondent No.3, did not accept his suggestion and found that the rate offered by the respondent No.4 was the lowest and most suitable and the firm was also found otherwise suitable in all respect and as such his tender was accepted. It has also been stated that considering the market price and handling charges, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Excise Department found that the price of Rs. 8. 76 per LPL is most reasonable and suggested that the same may be offered to respondent No. 4. It has also been stated that considering the market price and handling charges, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Excise Department found that the price of Rs. 8. 76 per LPL is most reasonable and suggested that the same may be offered to respondent No. 4. It has also been averred that the above rate was the most reasonable and that under clause (iv) of the tender notice State Govt. had the power to slash down the price. As this rate was accepted by respondent No. 4 the order of settlement was made in his favour and the respondent No. 3, Commissioner of Excise was asked to complete all formalities and sign the agreement. It has been denied that any illegality was committed by the State Govt. and averred that lowest tender was accepted as the firm ( respondent No. 4) was otherwise found suitable in all respect. 3. Records have been called for and produced on behalf of the State Govt. and the note sheets have been supplied to us in a sealed cover at the conclusion of the hearing. 4. Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order granting the contract in favour of the respondent No. 4 having been made on the basis of a negotiation between the State Govt. and respondent No. 4 only, the impugned order is illegal, void and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, the offer accepting the contract at a reduced rate could not have been made to the respondent alone to the exclusion of the writ petitioner. It has also been urged that the impugned grant of contract is bad in law, inasmuch as, no power and/or jurisdiction is vested in the authority to grant contract in favour of the respondent No. 4 on the basis of rate not quoted by him and that the grant of the contract is also hit by Article 14 of the Constitution and the concept of fair play as it was granted on the basis of unilateral offer made to respondent No. 4 alone at the reduced rate. According to Mr. Goswami, the public interest is to supply alchohol at the cheapest possible rates and as the suggestion of the Comm­issioner fixing the rate at Rs. According to Mr. Goswami, the public interest is to supply alchohol at the cheapest possible rates and as the suggestion of the Comm­issioner fixing the rate at Rs. 8.04 was not accepted by the State Govt., the grant of the contract is also against public policy. According to Mr. Goswami as the rates offered by all the tenderers were not accepted by the Commissioner and also by the State Govt. the grant of the contract in favour of the respondent No. 4 was by negotiation as provided under Rule 93 of the Rules framed under Excise Act, 1910, the State Govt. should have negotiated with all the tenderers whose tenders were found valid in order to find out the lowest rate that a person could have offered. It may be stated that in the report of the Commissioner to the State Govt. dated 21st November, 1990 which is available in the record, the Commissioner informed the State Govt. that regarding financial standing of two other tenderers, it was found to be not commensurate with the level of investment called for. 5. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 4 has urged that trading in liquor stands on a different footing from other trade and restrictions which are not permissible in other trades is lawful and reasonable so far trade in liquor is concerned. Learned counsel has also urged that one of the important purposes of selling the exclusive right to sale liquor is also to raise revenue and that the Govt. is the guardian of the finances of the State. According to learned counsel, by submitting tenders, the tenderers do not acquire any vested right and that no citizen has fundamental right to do business in liquor as laid down by the Apex Court. According to learned counsel in the context of liquor, the true test for application of Article 14 of the Constitution is fair play. Learned counsel has further urged that in the case in hand there was no negotiation of any kind and independent of Rule 93 of the Excise Rules, clause (iv) of the notice inviting tender, the Govt. had power to reduce the tender rates. Learned counsel has urged that the Govt. in the case in hand acted fairly and there is no discrimination and/or arbitra­riness in awarding the contract to respondent No. 4 by slashing down the rate. 6. had power to reduce the tender rates. Learned counsel has urged that the Govt. in the case in hand acted fairly and there is no discrimination and/or arbitra­riness in awarding the contract to respondent No. 4 by slashing down the rate. 6. We may state that section 19 of the Assam Excise Act, 1910, inter alia, provides that the State Govt. may grant to any person on such condition and for such period as it may think fit the exclusive privilege of manufacturing or supplying to licensed vendors the country liquor or intoxicating drugs within any area and further no guarantee of any exclusive privilege under this section shall exercise the same until he has received a licence. Rule 91 of the Assam Excise Rules. 1945 framed under section 36 of the Act, inter alia, provides that tender for a contract for exclusive privilege of supplying country spirit from a distillery to the licensed vendors will be called for by the Excise Commissioner and Rule 92, inter alia, provides the particulars to be supplied with the said tender. Rule 93 runs as follows :- "93- Right of Provincial Government to Grant licence to any person:-The Excise Commissioner shall forward the tenders with I is recommendations to the Provincial Government which reserves to itself the right to accept any tender If none of the tenders are accepted by the Provincial Govern­ment on the ground that none of them on due consideration appeared to be satisfactory they reserve also the right to grant licence to any person who has not tendered and is considered suitable in all respect. Provided that when a licence is cancelled or suspended during the currency of the licence, the Provincial Government further reserves the right' tu grant the licence to any one without calling for tenders." 7. Clause (iv) of the notice inviting tenders dated 10th September, 1990 runs as follows :- -The tenderers should quote their rates for supply of country spent per Proof Litre. The Govt. of Assam reserve itself right to accept or reject any tender or all tenders and to reduce the tender rates at the time of accepting any tender." 8 Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Lahin, m support of his contention regarding nature of liquor business to the decision of the Apex Court in Nashirwarvs. State of MP, AIR 1975 SC 360 . Lahin, m support of his contention regarding nature of liquor business to the decision of the Apex Court in Nashirwarvs. State of MP, AIR 1975 SC 360 . The Apex Court held that the State has exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor and grant such right or privilege in the shape of a licence or a lease. The State has also power to hold a public auction to grant of such rights or privileges and accept payment of a sum in consideration of grant of a lease. 9. In State of MP vs. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 , in para 33 of the judgment it was held that it is well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court that there is no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State under its regulatory power can prohibit absolutely every firm of activities in relation to intoxicants and no one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. According to Apex Court when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14 and cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will and further the State must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right privilege of manufacturing or selling of liquor. In the words of the Apex Court 'the State cannot ride roughshod over the requirement of that Article'. Their Lordships further held in para 34 that while considering the applicability of Article 14 in such a case one must bear in mind that, 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 Govt. for grant of licences for manufacturing and sale of liquor and further would allow a large measure of latitude to the State Govt. in Determining its policy of regulating, manufacturing and trade in liquor. According to their Lordships the grant of licences for manufacturing and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter or economic policy where the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the State Govt. in Determining its policy of regulating, manufacturing and trade in liquor. According to their Lordships the grant of licences for manufacturing and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter or economic policy where the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the State Govt. had done unless it appears to be arbitrary, irrational or malafide. Their Lordships further held that the Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide. 10. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramana's Case, AIR 1979 C 1628 has urged that the State Govt. cannot act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a 3rd party, but its action should conform t^ some standard or norms which is rational and non-discriminatory. 11. Situated thus, it follows that the State has the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling of liquor and such right or privilege can be granted in shape of a licence or a lease. There is no fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor. Bat when the State decides to grant or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor it cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. However, while applying the principles of Article 14 in case of liquor business, having regard to the nature of the trade or business, the Court would be slow in interfering with the decision of the Govt. for grant of licence for manufacturing or sale of liquor. But Court can interfere with any decision of the Govt, if it is arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide or there is absence of fair play. 12. Keeping in view the above position of law let us examine the facts of the present case. Drawing our attention to the report of the Commi­ssioner dated 21st November, 1990, Mr. Goswami, has urged that as the Commissioner on the basis of his calculation was of the view that even the lowest rate offered by the respondent No. 4 was higher by .91 paise when compared with the rate computed by the Commissioner in his report and as sue the rates offered by all the tenderers may not be accepted, i.e. that the tenders were all rejected. It follows that the rate of Rs. 8.76 per LPL offered to respondent No.4 by the State Govt. It follows that the rate of Rs. 8.76 per LPL offered to respondent No.4 by the State Govt. was by the process of nego­tiation and as such since the tenders were rejected this offer should have been made to all the tenderers. In support of his contention learned counsel has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court with reference to the present Act and also Rule 93 in M/s Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd vs. Commissioner of Excise, Assam, AIR 1972 SC 2281 In this connection we may refer to para 7 and 8 of the judgment which runs as follows :- "7. From the facts stated earlier, it is clear that the Government consi­dered the tenders by it to i-e unsatisfactory and hence unacceptable. That is clear from its letter to the tenderers asking them to reduce the price quoted. It is true that ultimately it granted the contract to the 5th respondent at the very rate quoted by the appellant. In the very notifica­tion calling for tenders, it had been mentioned that preference will be given to the manufacturers. It must be borne in mind that the Gover­nment is the purchaser. On good grounds it can prefer one seller to another. It is true that being a Government, it cannot show any undue favour to any party, but for good reasons it may prefer one party to another. There was justification in preferring a manufacturer to others. Evidently the idea was that there should be reasonable guarantee in the matter of supply of country liquor. It was not said that this preference was given for any collateral reason. The Government does not require any special power for preferring one class of sellers to others so long as the classification made by it is based on rational grounds. It is true that no rule confers on the Government power to prefer one set of suppliers to others. But what is important is that no rule prohibits it. In the absence of any such rule, S. 19 of the Act confers on the Government such a power. 8. It was next said that R. 93 prohibits the Government to negotiate with any of the tenderers. We are unable to read that rule in that way. That rule does not prohibit any negotiations with the tenderers. But . In the absence of any such rule, S. 19 of the Act confers on the Government such a power. 8. It was next said that R. 93 prohibits the Government to negotiate with any of the tenderers. We are unable to read that rule in that way. That rule does not prohibit any negotiations with the tenderers. But . on the other hand, it authorises the Government to negotiate with persons who have not tendered. Here again in the absence of any rule prohibiting the Government to negotiate with the tenderers, the Govern­ment can fall back on its powers under S. 19. We are unable to find out any rational basis for prohibiting the Government from negotiating with the tenderers. All that the Government is interested is to get country spirit at the cheapest possible rates and to have regular supplies. For achieving those purposes, it can negotiate either with the tenderers or with others." 13. Thus the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with reference to section 19 of the Excise Act and Rule 93 of the Rules framed thereunder is clear. That the State Govt. being the purchaser of liquor on good grounds can prefer one seller to another, but should not show any undue favour to any party. According to Apex Court the idea being that there should be reaso­nable guarantee in the matter of supply of country liquor and the preference given to any party may not be for collateral reason. The contention that Rule 93 prohibits the Govt. to negotiate with any of the tenderers was rejected by the Apex Court and their Lordships were of the view that this rule authorises Govt. to negotiate with persons who have not tendered. It was further held that as the only interest of the Govt, is to get country spirit at the cheapest possible rates and to have regular supplies, for achie­ving these purposes it can negotiate, with the tenderers or with others. 14. Relying on the ratio laid down regarding negotiation by the Govt. with tenderers Mr. Goswami learned counsel for the petitioner has stren­uously urged that as the word 'tenderer' has been used as plural, such negotiation must be with all tenderers. 15. 14. Relying on the ratio laid down regarding negotiation by the Govt. with tenderers Mr. Goswami learned counsel for the petitioner has stren­uously urged that as the word 'tenderer' has been used as plural, such negotiation must be with all tenderers. 15. The crux of the question m the case in hand is whether the settle­ment with respondent No.4 was made after negotiation or whether his tender was accepted being the lowest and thereafter he was asked to reduce the price as the main interest of Govt. is to get liquor at the cheapest possible rates. 16. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 on 10th June, 1991 it has been specifically stated that the rate of respondent No.4 being the lowest and as the tender was found suitable the tender was selected for the purpose of granting contract and the price was slashed down as per clause (iv) of the tender notice. In the counter filed on behalf of the State Govt. it has been stated specifically that the respondent No.4 was found suitable in all respects and accordingly the tender was accepted but considering the market price and handling charges the Govt. found the price of Rs. 8.76 per LPL most suitable and the price offered by respondent No.4 reduced to above price as per clause (iv) of the tender notice and it was offered to respondent No. 4 which was duly accepted. It is true that this affidavit of the State Govt. was filed only after who had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the records of the case were made available at the time of hearing and learned counsel for the petitioner also made submissions on the basis of the record. 17. From the records we find that in the report of the Commissioner of Excise dated 21.11.90 to the State Govt. 8 tenderers were found suitable including respondent No.4 but the lowest rate quoted by respondent No.4 was found to be on higher side. As per calculation of the Excise Commissioner the rate should have been Rs. 8.04 per LPL. In the record, we find that on 11th February, 1991 a letter was sent by the Govt. to the respondent No.4 informing him that the State Govt. decided to award the contract to him @ Rs. 8.76 per LPL instead of Rs.8.95 per LPL quoted by him. 8.04 per LPL. In the record, we find that on 11th February, 1991 a letter was sent by the Govt. to the respondent No.4 informing him that the State Govt. decided to award the contract to him @ Rs. 8.76 per LPL instead of Rs.8.95 per LPL quoted by him. In the letter, the respondent No.4 was also informed that if the rate is acceptable, the State Govt. may be communicated of the acceptance within 7 days. On the same day, respondent No. 4 accepted the rate and thereafter. State Govt. informed the Commissioner of Excise on the same day that the contract was awarded to respondent No.4. 18. From the first letter dated 11.2.91, we are of the opinion that as the State Govt. decided to award the contract to respondent No.4 it amounts to acceptance of his tender as otherwise there would not have been any question of deciding to award the contract. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the clause (iv) of the tender notice, the Govt. has got the power to reduce the rate and there cannot by any illegality on this count. 19. The contention of Mr. Goswami that this rate should have been offered to all the tenderers would have force, had the rate offered by the respondent No.4 would have been the lowest. Mr. Goswami has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1780 of 1991 disposed of on 2.7.91 (1991 (2) GLJ 108) in support of his contention that the new rate arrived at by the State Govt. should have been offered to all the tenderers. In this connection as stated above Mr. Goswami has also laid emphasis in para 8 of the decision of the Apex Court in Ms/ Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. {supra) where the words tenderers have been used. 20. In Civil Rule No.1780 of 1991, aforesaid a contract was awarded to respondent No.4 of that case at the rate quoted by the petitioner of that case and thereafter a revised rate was made to respondent No. 4 which was the rate quoted by another tenderer. 20. In Civil Rule No.1780 of 1991, aforesaid a contract was awarded to respondent No.4 of that case at the rate quoted by the petitioner of that case and thereafter a revised rate was made to respondent No. 4 which was the rate quoted by another tenderer. But that is not so in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the lowest rate quoted by the respondent No.4 was not accepted and the rate was further reduced in pursuance to clause (iv) of the tender notice which in our opinion was well within the competence of the State Govt. keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court quoted above. Regarding grant of privilege for dealing in liquor business the ratio laid down by this Court in the above Civil Rule No. 1780 of 1991 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Considering section 19 of the Act, Rule 93 and the tender notice, we are of the clear opinion that since the State Govt. has power to do so, if the tender quoting the lowest rate is accepted, and thereafter the tenderer is asked to reduce the price, no illegality or irregularity is committed. We are also of the opinion that in such a case it is not necessary to offer the rate to other tenderers. We may, however, make it clear that if the rate quoted by another tenderer is offered to some other tenderer it would amount to settlement by negotiation and in such a case, the opportunity should be given to all tenderers, otherwise, it will amount to arbitrariness and unfair practice. But in the case in hand, considering the facts and the law stated above, we do not find any arbitrariness or unfair practice in accepting the lowest tender offered by the respondent No. 4 and thereafter, reducing the price offered to a lower rate. Therefore, the action of the State Govt. cannot be faulted. 21. Another important point which needs our consideation that although the Excise Commissioner suggested the rate of Rs. 8.04 per LPL would be reasonable amount, the State Govt. increased this price to Rs. 8.76 per LPL. According to Mr. Goswarai, this fixation of rate by the Govt. was done arbitrarily. In the counter-affidavit by the State Govt. cannot be faulted. 21. Another important point which needs our consideation that although the Excise Commissioner suggested the rate of Rs. 8.04 per LPL would be reasonable amount, the State Govt. increased this price to Rs. 8.76 per LPL. According to Mr. Goswarai, this fixation of rate by the Govt. was done arbitrarily. In the counter-affidavit by the State Govt. in para 2 it has been stated that considering the market price and handling charges, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Excise Department found the price of Rs. 8.76 per LPL to be most reasonable ........." 22. In the conclusion of the hearing, the note sheet of the record where the calculation was made was produced before us in a sealed cover. We have perused the calculation made and the facts taken into account and we do not find that the rate arrived was fixed arbitrarily or unreasonably. In fact some of the facts not considered by the Commi­ssioner of Excise were rightly considered by the State Govt while arriving at the above price and the said calculation including the suggestion to accept the lowest tender of respondent N. 4 and offering the above price was duly accepted by the then Adviser to the Governor as the State was under President's Rule. 23. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as alongwith the tender, the petitioner also informed that, rate offered by him is subject to negotiation, the petitioner should have been offered the rate fixed by the Govt. In reply, Mr. Lahiri has urged that such conditional offer is not well within the law. We find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Lahiri, inasmuch, a tender is nothing but an offer and such offer must be a firm one and it cannot be subject to negotiation. If such procedure is allowed in submitting tender, the whole purpose of issuing notice inviting tender may well be frustrated. 24. For what has been stated above, we find no force in the present petition and accordingly it is dismissed.