ORDER V .S. Kokje, J -- 2. This case was heard along with Misc. Petition No. 280/91 (Viresh Chandra Patidar & Ors. v. The State of M.P. and Ors.). The relief sought in both the cases as well as the grounds on which the relief was sought being similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. In Misc. petition No. 239/91, the Petitioners, who are residents of Vijay Nagar, a colony developed under its scheme No. 54 by the Indore Development Authority, have challenged opening of a foreign liquor shop in the locality. In Misc. Petition No. 280/91 the petitioners, who are residents of village Nagda, Tahsil Badnavar District Dhar, have challenged the opening of a foreign liquorshop in their village Nagda. Apart from the localities being urban and rural, there is no remarkable difference in the aforesaid two cases and the arguments have also been common. It would, therefore, be proper as also convenient to dispose of these two petitions together. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that the residents of the localities in which the shops are proposed to be opened are deadly against opening of such a shop and several representations had been made forewarning the respondents about the public opposition to opening of such a shop in their locality. It is contended that Advisory Committees have not been constituted in accordance with the provisions of section 62 of the M.P. Excise Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder; that consultation with the Advisory Committee before opening a shop was a mandatory requirement, which has not been fulfilled; that the procedure prescribed for publication of the intention to open a shop in a new locality inviting objections from the local population was not followed; that the requirement of rules for general application framed u/s 62 of the Act were not followed inasmuch as the proposed shop would be near a place of worship, a primary or a middle school, a hospital, a labour colony, a petrol pump, National highway, etc. 4. In the return filed in Misc. 4. In the return filed in Misc. Petition No. 239/91, it has been admitted that the residents of the locality have been opposing opening of such a shop; that the advisory committee in its meeting has passed a resolution and a recommendation to open shops in different parts of city of Indore, one of them has to be located in the Vijay Nagar locality. It is denied by the respondents that the opening of such a shop will disturb the peace of the area and will encourage anti-social elements in the area. It is also contended that part-A of the rules of general applications would not apply to the case because the new shop will be run on a F.L.I. licence, which does not permit consumption of liquor on the premises. Regarding procedural lapses also it is stated in the return that the prescribed procedure was followed and it was denied that there was any lapse on the part of the respondents in following the procedure prescribed under the rules. The contention of the respondents is that the rules framed under S. 62 (e), (f) and (h) of the Act apply only to the shops and the premises on which liquor is permitted to be consumed, In the return filed in Misc. Petition No. 280/91 it has also been contended that there was already a country liquor shop in the locality and it has never been reported that it has caused any breach of public peace or tranquility. Other allegations in Misc. Petition No. 280/91 have also been refuted in the return. 5. We have heard Shri A.M. Mathur, the Senior Advocate appearing with Shri C.B. Patni counsel for the petitioners in Misc. petition No. 239/91; Shri R.S. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 280/91 and Shri T.N. Singh, the learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Garg adopted the arguments of Shri A.M. Mathur as regards main points and supplemented his arguments on the point of the rules applicable to rural areas. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel, it would be proper to first deal with the provisions of law governing the opening of a liquor shop. Section 17 of the Act provides that no intoxicant shall be sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of licence granted in that behalf. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel, it would be proper to first deal with the provisions of law governing the opening of a liquor shop. Section 17 of the Act provides that no intoxicant shall be sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of licence granted in that behalf. S. 28 of the Act provides that every licence, permit or pass granted under the Act shall be granted on payment of such fees, if any, for such period and subject to such restrictrions and on such conditions and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as the State Government may direct either generally by rules made under S. 62 or in any particular instance, S. 62 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of S. 62 of the Act provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may make rules providing for among other things for regulating the periods and localities for which, and the persons or classes or persons to whom, licences for the wholesale or retail vend of any intoxicant may be granted, and regulating the number of such licences which may be granted in any local area, prescribing the procedure to be followed and the matters to be ascertained before any licence for such vend is granted for any locality as also for prescribing the measures for ascertaining local public opinion and providing for the appointment of advisory committees and specifying their powers and duties. The rule making power in respect of the aforesaid specific points is contained in S. 62 (2) (e), (1) and (i) of the Act. In exercise of the aforesaid rule making power the State Government has framed rules of which Part-A and B are of relevance for the purposes of this case. Location of shops is dealt with in rule-I of the rules of general application contained in part-A of the rules. The provision opens with the words "no retail shop shall be licensed for the consumption of liquor on the premises" and then prescribes conditions upon which such a shop can be allowed to be opened. Location of shops is dealt with in rule-I of the rules of general application contained in part-A of the rules. The provision opens with the words "no retail shop shall be licensed for the consumption of liquor on the premises" and then prescribes conditions upon which such a shop can be allowed to be opened. These conditions include conditions like the situation of the shop not being in or at the entrance to a market place, in the neighbourhood of a mill, factory or other place where large body of labour is employed, without first giving the mill owner or such employer of labour an opportunity of stating their objections to the proposals and within a specified distance of a place of worship, a primary or middle school, bathing ghat, hospital, a colony of members of scheduled Castes, a labour colony, petrol pump, railway station/Yard or a bus stand, without sanction of the State Government. There is also a prohibition contained in the aforesaid provisions for opening of a liquor shop where consumption of liquor is allowed near a National highway or a national institution other than a primary or a middle school, without the sanction of the State Government except when such shop is situated at a distance of five k.m. or more from such highway or institution. Sub-rule (3) of the aforesaid rule I prescribes that shops for the sale of foreign liquor to be consumed on the premises shall be opened only in places where there is a proved demand by the class of drinkers accustomed to foreign liquor. The petitioners tried to argue that these rules are applicable to opening of a foreign liquor shop as is proposed to be opened in the locality. 7. Part-B of the rules provides for the constitution and functions of the Excise Advisory Committee. Sub-rule-I of these rules provides that for every cantonment and municipal area there shall be an Urban Advisory Committee. 7. Part-B of the rules provides for the constitution and functions of the Excise Advisory Committee. Sub-rule-I of these rules provides that for every cantonment and municipal area there shall be an Urban Advisory Committee. In a municipal area the Advisory Committee shall consist of the Collector or a Deputy Collector nominated by him as Ex-officio Chairman, the District Superintendent of Police, or any Police Officer not lower in rank than Circle Inspector from time to time appointed by the District Superintendent of Police, four members the municipal committee of the area elected by that committee, one representative of the scheduled castes and not more than two representatives of dealers in intoxicants to be nominated by the Collector if he considers that the members elected from the municipal committee do not adequately represent such castes or dealers, the District Excise Officer or in his absence the Assistant District Excise Officer is the Ex-officio secondly it has further been provided that since a municipal committee is newly established or a general election is completed in a municipality, the Collector shall call upon the committee to elect its representative under clause (c) of sub-rule I from among its members. It has further been provided that the Collector shall call upon the municipal committee to elect a representative whenever there is a vacancy and any member so elected shall continue to be a member of the advisory committee during his term of office as a member of the municipal committee, or until a successor on the Advisory Committee is elected. A proviso has also been added to this provision to the effect that if a member elected by the municipal committee to serve on the Advisory Committee ceases to be a member of the municipal committee for reason other than the expiry of his term of office on that committee, he shall also cease to be a member of the Advisory Committee. The functions of the Advisory Committee are given in rule-II of Part-B. Since, the counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on this rule, it would be proper to re-produce it hereunder even at the cost of brevity:- "II- Function of Advisory Committee in municipal and cantonment areas :-(1) The Collector shall consult the Advisory Committee of the municipal or cantonment areas concerned on all important excise matters directly affecting the consuming public and not concerned with the organisation, discipline or procedure of the Excise Department or the selection of licensees, and in particular before making any change in -- (a) the member of excise shops for the sale of country liquor, intoxicating drugs and foreign liquor under licence forms F.L. 1, 2 and 3, and their distribution in the several wards of the area; or (b) the sites of shops licensed for the sale of liquor which may be consumed on the premises. (2) Whenever it is proposed to open a shop on a new site at which liquor may be consumed on the premises the Advisory Committee shall publish the fact in the locality; and a written notice specifying the date on or before which objections may be presented shall be affixed at or near the site in question. In a municipal area a copy of the notice shall also be sent to the ward member who should visit the spot and enquire locally into the suitability of the site. After considering any objections which may be raised, the Advisory Committee shall submit its report to the Collector. The Collector may sanction the proposal, if it is approved by the Advisory Committee. If the Collector and the Advisory Committee differ in opinion regarding the proposal, the matter shall be reported to the Excise Commissioner, for orders. (3) Any change proposed in the number of excise shops of the classes specified in clause (c) of sub-rule (1) shall be reported to the Excise Commissioner for approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee shall be attached to that report. (4) Every Urban Advisory Committee shall submit to the Collector by August 15th each year any proposals which it has to make regarding the grant of licences or location of shops for the sale of tari, country spirit, foreign liquor and intoxica ting drugs; for the ensuing year. The opinion of the Advisory Committee shall be attached to that report. (4) Every Urban Advisory Committee shall submit to the Collector by August 15th each year any proposals which it has to make regarding the grant of licences or location of shops for the sale of tari, country spirit, foreign liquor and intoxica ting drugs; for the ensuing year. It shall submit to toe Collector by October 15 each year a statement in such form as may be prescribed summarizing the action taken by it with regard to the excise administration of the area concerned. 8. The constitution of the Rural Advisory Committee is provided by rule-III. The constitution is somewhat similar to the urban Advisory Committee except instead of municipal members two members selected by each Janpad Sabha in the district have to be taken as members. The functions of the Rural Advisory Committee are given in IV of part-B. Since the petitioners in other case Misc. Petition No. 280/91 have heavily relied on this provision, it is being reproduced hereunder:- "Function of Advisory Committee in Rural areas :-(1) The Collector shall consult the Rural Advisory Committee on all important excise matters directly affecting the consuming public including any change in the number of licences for the sale of foreign liquor under licence forms F.L. 1, 2 and 3 and not concerned with the organisation, discipline or procedure of the Excise Department or the selection of licensees. (2) Whenever it is proposed to open a shop other than a shop for the sale of foreign liquor in a village for the first time the papers of the enquiry held in accordance with rule VI shall be laid before the Rural Advisory committee for an expression of its opinion on the proposal. The opinion of the Rural Advisory committee shall be duly considered by the Collector before he passed orders on the proposal. The opinion of the Advisory Committee shall be attached to the Collector's proceedings. If the Collector and Advisory Committee differ in opinion regarding the proposal the matter shall be reported to the Excise Commissioner, for orders. (3) Any change proposed in the number of licences for the sale of foreign liquor under licence forms F.L. 1, 2 and 3 shall be reported by the Collector to the Excise Commissioner for approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee shall be attached to the report. (3) Any change proposed in the number of licences for the sale of foreign liquor under licence forms F.L. 1, 2 and 3 shall be reported by the Collector to the Excise Commissioner for approval. The opinion of the Advisory Committee shall be attached to the report. (4) Every Rural Advisory Committee shall submit to the Collector by August 15, each year any proposals which it has to make regarding to location of shops for the sale of tari, country spirit and intoxicating drugs, for the ensuing year. It shall submit to the Collector by October, 15, each year a statement in such form as may be prescribed summerizing the action taken by it with regard to the excise administration of the area concerned." 8-A. Part H of the rules regulates sale of foreign liquor and is called foreign Liquor Rules. Rule II of Part-II relates to sale of foreign liquor. It provides for three kinds of F.L. 1, 2 and 3 licences. F.L. 1 is a licence for sale of foreign liquor not to be consumed at the premises, F.L. 2 is a licence given to a public house for the sale and consumption on the premises and F.L. 3 is a licence given to hotels which permits the licence holder to sell foreign liquor for consumption on the premises to certain specified persons. The sale has to be made to the residents of the hotels for the use of guests requiring liquor with meals supplied to them. 9. Having recapitulated the legal position, let us now turn to the petitioner's case. In Misc. Petition No. 239/91 the complaint is that no public notice was given to the inhabitants of the area; that there was no proved demand by the class of drinkers accustomed to foreign liquor in the area; the place of the shop was not fixed so that objections could be invited to the particular location; that opposition of the public has not been taken into consideration; that no spot can be chosen in the locality which would not offend the provisions of rule I of sub-rule I of Part-A of the Excise rules. By way of amendment a further ground has been added that as the Municipal Corporation, Indore stands dissolved, there is no valid constitution of the urban Advisory Committee and in the absence of four members of the Municipal Committee of the area elected by that Committee as required under the Rules framed under S. 62 (i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, no valid consultation by the Collector with the Advisory Committee could have been made. At the time of hearing it was also argued that the case relates to increase in the number of licences in the area and, therefore, the procedure prescribed for increase in the number of such licences should have been followed. However, there is no foundation for this argument in the petition. Shri Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioners took us through the various provisions in the constitution relating to prohibition and regulation of trade in intoxicants. He insisted that Article 47 sets prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks as a constitutional goal and this has to be kept in mind in deciding all questions which relate to trade in intoxicants. He submitted that the law enacted by virtue of the power conferred by Entry-8 in List II of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution will have to be interpreted keeping in view the constitutional goal of prohibition. Relying on the decision reported in Nashirwar etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ( AIR 1975 SC 360 ) he submitted that there is no fundamental right of citizens to carryon trade or to do business in liquor. There is the police power of the State to enforce public morality to prohibit trades in noxious or dangerous goods. There is power of the State to enforce an absolute prohibition of manufacture of sale of intoxicating liquor. Art. 47 states that the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The history of excise law shows that the State has exclusive right or privilege of manufacture or sale of liquor. Trade in liquor has historically stood on a different footing from other trades. Restrictions which are not permissible in other trades are lawful and reasonable so far as the trade in liquor is concerned. The history of excise law shows that the State has exclusive right or privilege of manufacture or sale of liquor. Trade in liquor has historically stood on a different footing from other trades. Restrictions which are not permissible in other trades are lawful and reasonable so far as the trade in liquor is concerned. That is why even prohibition of the trade in liquor is not only permissible but is also reasonable. The reasons are public morality, public interest and harmful and dangerous character of the liquor. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-State in this case is duty-bound to use its privileges and powers in such a manner that the constitutional goal of total prohibition of intoxicating liquors comes nearer and does not remain illusory. According to the learned counsel consideration of public morality and public interest demanded that when the residents of the locality are opposing the opening of the liquor shop, the State should not open it only keeping in view the revenue it would generate. 10. Shri Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Baldevsingh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pratksh& Ors. ( AIR 1987 SC 1239 ). In that decision it was held that the situation of a notified area under the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act involves civil consequences and, therefore, proper opportunity of hearing to residents of the locality must be afforded though not clearly provided in S. 256 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act. 11. Lastly, Shri Mathur cited passages from the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh appearing on pages 157 and 159 of the Fourth Edition, 1988 under the heading "Later Social, Political & Economic Development and Scientific inventions". According to Shri Mathur the State Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder are very old pieces of legislation and modem ideas suitable to our times cannot be expected to be expressed in clearer terms in these ancient legislations. Shri Mathur had also cited certain rulings on the point of locus standi of the petitioner. We need not refer them because we do not find that the petition can be thrown out on that ground. 12. Let us first examine the case of the petitioners on the basis of the rules. Shri Mathur had also cited certain rulings on the point of locus standi of the petitioner. We need not refer them because we do not find that the petition can be thrown out on that ground. 12. Let us first examine the case of the petitioners on the basis of the rules. A bare reading of Part-A of the Rules of General Applications would show that the provisions of Rule-I of that part relating to location of shops apply only to F.L. 2 and F.L. 3 licences and not to F-L. 1 licence which does not permit consumption of liquor on the premises. The objections raised by the petitioners in this regard on the basis of application of Rules of General Application Part-A, therefore, do not survive. 13. As regards Part-B of the Rules regarding constitution and functions of the Advisory Committee before going into the validity of the constitution of the Committee, let us examine whether for opening a new shop for sale of foreign liquor under F.L. 1 licence, it is mandatory to consult the Advisory Committee. The plain language of Rule -II of Part-B relating to functions of the Advisory Committee in municipal areas shows that consultation with the Advisory Committee is required on all important excise matters directly affecting the public. It is further provided that consultation is necessary before making any change in number of excise shops of sale for foreign liquor under F.L. 1, 2 and 3 licences and, their distribution in every ward of the area. The necessity of consultation with the advisory Committee is specifically provided in deciding the sites of the shops, licence for the sale of the foreign liquor, which may be consumed on the premises. The plain meaning of the language is that consultation with the Advisory Committee has been provided for only when the number of ficences under F.L. 1 licence is to be changed. So far as location of the shops and the site of the shops for F.L. 1 licences are excluded from pale of the Advisory Committee. Sub-rule (2) of Rule II also shows that the intention is to control the location of shops on the premises of which liquor may be consumed. So far as location of the shops and the site of the shops for F.L. 1 licences are excluded from pale of the Advisory Committee. Sub-rule (2) of Rule II also shows that the intention is to control the location of shops on the premises of which liquor may be consumed. It stands to reason also because there is vast difference in the atmosphere of a shop where liquor is consumed on the premises and a shop which merely sells sealed bottles of liquor. The danger of disturbance of public tranquility may be associated with shops on the premises of which liquor is consumed by it may not be so in respect of a shop from which sealed bottles of liquor only are allowed to be sold. Evil effects of liquor are felt by the consumers as well as the residents of the locality only on consumption of liquor and not on mere sale of liquor in sealed bottles. What the legislature wanted was to control the location of shops on which liquor is allowed to be consumed because after such consumption the consumer is likely to create nuisance or breach of peace in the locality which would seriously affect the lives of residents of the locality. The intention of the legislature clearly seems to exclude the retail shops having F.L. 1 licence from the restrictions as to locality and consultation with the Advisory Committee considering them to be not as harmful as the shops on the premises of which liquor is allowed to be consumed. The functions of the Rural Advisory Committee contained in Rule IV of Part-B also indicates the same thing. Consultation has been provided in case of increase in number of licences and not in respect of location of the shops. On the plain reading of the rules, therefore, we are of the opinion that part- A of the Rules relating to location of the shops do not apply to opening of a foreign liquor shop with F.L. 1 licence. We also conclude that the requirements of consultation with the Advisory Committee does not apply to opening of a shop under F.L. 1 licence. We also conclude that the requirements of consultation with the Advisory Committee does not apply to opening of a shop under F.L. 1 licence. As we have taken the view that consultation with the advisory Committee is not necessary for deciding the location of a shop under F.L. 1 licence, it is not necessary for us to decide the validity of the constitution of the Advisory Committee. As we have observed that the petitioners have not come up with a case that the number of excise licences in the District are being increased, the arguments based on the increase in the number of licence, is, therefore, clearly an afterthought and cannot be entertained. 14. Let us now turn to the arguments that whether there be provisions in the Act and the Rules or not but in the matters like opening of a liquor shop in a locality, the residents of the locality have to be afforded a hearing. In Baldevsingh's case ( AIR 1987 SC 1239 ) (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute specifically rules out the application of natural justice, the rules of natural justice would apply. On the basis of this principle it was decided in that case that before a notified area is constituted in terms of S. 256 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, the people of the locality should be afforded an opportunity of being heard and the administrative decision by the State Government should be taken after considering the views of the residents. Denial of such opportunity is not in consonance with the scheme of the Rule of Law governing our society. There can be no quarrel with this preposition of law, enunciated in the aforesaid rulings. However, we have to see whether the same principles can be made applicable in the case of opening of a liquor shop in a locality. In other words, whether opening of a liquor shop in a locality results in any civil consequences to the residents of the locality which would give rise to a right of hearing to them in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The case before the Supreme Court was relating to a Local Self Government and it cannot be denied that in a matter of Local Self Government the residents of the locality must have a say. The case before the Supreme Court was relating to a Local Self Government and it cannot be denied that in a matter of Local Self Government the residents of the locality must have a say. There they have to choose an agency of self governance whether it be a Municipality, a notified area or a Gram Panchayat. In democracy any constitution of a unit of self governance shall have civil consequences for the citizens. A case of opening of a liquor shop cannot be linked with a case of deciding the agency of self governance. We, therefore, find that the aforesaid case does not have any application to the case before us. Opening of a liquor shop under F.L. 1 licence cannot be taken to be very different from opening of shops dealing with similar products like pesticides, insecticides etc. No question of creation of nuisance or breach of pub lie peace for tranquility is involved in opening of such a liquor shop on the premises of which liquor is not allowed to be consumed. It is not, therefore, necessary even under the principles of natural justice to provide an opportunity of hearing to residents of the locality while deciding to open a foreign liquor shop with F.L. 1 licence. 15. As regards the arguments that the entire rules have to be looked into from a progressive and modern point of view and keeping in view constitutional goal of prohibition, there can be no quarrel. However, keeping in view the constitutional goal as also the progress made by the society and its modem norms, it does not mean that the plain meaning of the statute and the rules can be ignored or can be supplemented to the extent of creating some thing new, which was not intended by the legislature. The question of constitutional goal of prohibition does not come into picture in this case because once it is permitted to open a liquor shop in a locality where it should be located, has no relation to the policy of prohibition. It is a matter of detail which has to be worked out by the administration under the rules made for the purposes. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no orders as to costs. It is a matter of detail which has to be worked out by the administration under the rules made for the purposes. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no orders as to costs. The amount of security deposit, if any, be refunded after due verification.