Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. -the two applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of together. In c. W. J. C. No.3869 of 1992, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing a part of the order dated 22-4-1992 (Annexure-1)issued by Respondent No 4 whereby he was informed that his licence would be renewed for the year 1992-93, if he undertakes to pay a sum of rs.8 lacs per month towards excise duty. In C. W. J. C. No.4460 of 1992, the petitioner seeks for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 28-4-1992 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application whereby he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs per month by way of excise duty. 2. The writ petitioners of both the oases have been granted licences for sale of India made Foreign Liquor. Petitioners filed an application for renewal of the said licence for the year 1992-93 which by reason of the impugned order dated 22-4-1992 was directed to be renewed subject to the condition that the writ petitioners have to pay the aforementioned amounts of Rs.8 lacs and Rs.5 lacs respectively by way of minimum excise duty, failing which legal action shall be taken against them. One of the conditions mentioned therein is that the licence shall be renewed only upon grant of the aforementioned undertaking. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has questioned the aforementioned orders, inter alia, on the ground that no such condition could be imposed by the Respondent No.4 as only the Board of Revenue in exercise of its power under Sec.90 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act can issue such a direction. It has further been contended that apart from the persons named in Annexure-2, the others licensees were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and thus, the said order is discriminatory. The writ petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.3869 of 1992 has also contended that ex facie there does not appear to be any justification as to why he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8 lacs per month whereas the other persons including the petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.4460 of 1992 have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs per month only. Our attention was further drawn to the fact that a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 24-4-1992 passed in c. W. J. C. No.3359 of 1992 as contained in Annexure-S to the writ application has held that a licence cannot be refused to be renewed on the ground that there has been default in the payment of excise duty, 4. In C. W. J. C. No.3869, a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been contended that an inspection was made on 24-4-1992 wherein it was found that there has been a substantial short fall in the stock held by the petitioner. It has been contended that as renewal of licence is a fresh grant, the Collector has discretion to impose such condition or conditions as be may deem fit and proper, 5. In C. W. J. C. No.4460 of 1992 it has been contended on behalf of the State that as the petitioner thereof has given an undertaking in terms of the aforementioned order dated 22-4-1992, he is estopped and precluded from questioning the same. 6. It is now well known that the grant of privilege to sell the liquor is within the discretion of the State. However, when a licence has already been granted, the renewal thereof should be made in terms of the provisions of the bihar Excise Act (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. Sec.80 of the said Act provides for the grant of licence. 7. Section 38 of the said Act reads as follows : "38. Fees for terms, conditions, and form of, and duration of, licensees permits and passes.- (1) Every licence, permit or pass granted under this Act- (a) shall be granted- (i) on payment of such fees (if any), and (ii) subject to such restrictions and on such conditions, and (b) shall be in such form and contain such particulars, as the board may direct. (2) Every licence, permit or pass under this Act shall be granted for such period (if any) as may be prescribed by rule made by the state Government under Sec.89, clause (e ). " 8. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is evident that only the Board of Renue is empowered to give general direction with regard to the condition of the licence including the payment of fees. 9. " 8. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is evident that only the Board of Renue is empowered to give general direction with regard to the condition of the licence including the payment of fees. 9. Section 90 of the said Act confers power upon the Board of Revenue to frame Rules. Sec.91 empowers the Board to exercise its power conferred by the said Act, from time to time, as and when occasion arises therefore. Thus, Board of Revenue is the only competent authority by reason of the power granted to it under Sections 38 and 91 of the said Act to issue general instructions with regard to the conditions of the licence granted under the Excise Act. It is true that the Collector is the Licensing Authority but, he has to grant licence in terms of the general directions of Board of Revenue as may be given by it, from time to time. Whenever the Collector imposes any additional condition sue motu either with regard to the quantum of fee or with regard to the quantum of security etc. without any such direction from the Board of Revenue, it must be held, that the same is ultra tires. 10. The licence of the petitioners were directed to be renewed subject to the conditions mentioned therein. In the counter-affidavit, it has not been stated as to why and on what basis the petitioners were directed to pay a minimum sum of Rs.8 lacs and Rs.5 lacs per month respectively by way of excise duty, whereas others have been directed to pay a minimum sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, the same ex facie appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory. It also does not stand to any reason as wby the petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.3869 of 1992 has been directed to pay a sum Rs.8 lacs per month by way of exercise duty whereas the other four persons including the writ petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.4460 of 1992 has been directed to pay only a sum of Rs.5 lacs per month. Such a condition is, thus, not only ultra vires to Sections 38 and 91 of the said Act but is also arbitrary and discriminatory as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Such a condition is, thus, not only ultra vires to Sections 38 and 91 of the said Act but is also arbitrary and discriminatory as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. As noticed hereinbefore, a Division Bench of this Court in c. W. J. C. No.3359 of 1992 (Parnab Kumar Shaw V/s. The State of Bihar and ethers) clearly held that default of payment of excise duty in itself cannot be a ground to refuse the renewal of licence. 12. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 13. So far as contention of the State in C. W. J. C. No.4460 of 1992 to the effect that the petitioner thereof had already furnished his undertaking and, thus, he is estopped from questioning the same is concerned, the same must be rejected as from a perusal of Annexure-3 of the writ application, it appears that he had given the said undertaking under protest as, the principle of estoppel has no application in the instant case. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, these applications are allowed and the Respondents are hereby directed to renew the licences for the year 1992-93 and issue formal licence. 15. However, in C. W. J. C. No.3869 of 1992, it appears that there are certain allegations as against the petitioner thereof. It will be open to the Licensing Authority to initiate any appropriate proceedings as against the said petitioner on the basis of the said inspection as contained in the report (Annexure-A of the counter-affidavit) including one for cancellation of licence as the Authority may think fit and proper. It was submitted by Mr. Jain, learned Additional Advocate General that this matter should be left at the hands of the Collector at the time of renewal of the licence itself, but, in our opinion, such direction is not possible to be given inasmuch as the writ petitioner was found by the Collector himself if to be entitled to renewal of licence as is evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application subject to imposition of the condition which has been found by us to be invalid by a logical corolary. Therefore, it must be held that the Collector had already passed an order for renewal of the petitioners licence and only new formalities are therefore have to be complied with. 16. Therefore, it must be held that the Collector had already passed an order for renewal of the petitioners licence and only new formalities are therefore have to be complied with. 16. Further, we are of the view that as the State is losing its revenue by reason of non-renewal of the licence of the petitioners and further in view of the fact that on appropriate proceeding can always be initiated by the Licencing authority, it will not be advisable to delay the grant of renewal of licence to the petitioners. 17. These applications are, therefore, allowed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost. S. Hoda, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.