JUDGMENT P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The petitioner is a permanent resident within the Nelliyampathy Panchayat area. The area of his residence falls within the jurisdiction of the Nenmara Range of the Excise Department. The main dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the location of two toddy shops. 2. The substantial relief sought by the petitioner in the course of the hearing is to set aside Ext. R1(b) proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram dated 27-4-1994. By Ext. R1(b) the Board of Revenue has accorded sanction to the licensee to transfer the Toddy Shop Nos. 196 and 198/94-95 of Nenmara Range from existing buildings to Door Nos.111/255 and VI/36 of Nelliyampathy Panchayat. The licensee is the 1st respondent in the Original Petition and he has filed Ext. R1(a) representation earlier before the Excise Commissioner requesting to transfer the shops which he had obtained in auction held in March 1994. The complaint of the petitioner is that the alternate building to which the shops were transferred are not in existence. After the transfer, the licensee has constructed two temporary sheds to sell toddy and what is going on there is illicit liquor trade. Pursuant to Ext. R1(b), the 1st respondent had obtained permit to transport the toddy to the alternate shop. It is further argued that when auction notice has prescribed the jurisdiction of each shops, the Board of Revenue has no authority to transfer the shop from one place to another. The 1st respondent has filed Ext. P1 representation only before the Excise Commissioner and not before Board of Revenue. It is pointed out that the locality in which the new shops are permitted to be located is an area where Adivasis and Plantation Labourers reside. It also contended that the establishment of new shops at the alternate buildings is at any rate opposed to the provisions contained in the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). 3. Sri. C. S. Anantha Krishna Iyer, Senior Advocate has pointed out that under Sub-rule (2) of R.6 no toddy shops shall be located outside the limits notified under R.4, but with the previous sanction of Assistant Excise Commissioner it may be removed from one place to another within such limits. However, it is an admitted case that Ext. R1(b) challenged in this case has been passed by the Board of Revenue. However, it is an admitted case that Ext. R1(b) challenged in this case has been passed by the Board of Revenue. It is difficult to argue that the Board of Revenue has no power to pass the order like Ext. R1 (b) and Sub-rule (3) of R.6 amply confers power on the Board to pass such orders. The Board of Revenue has granted Ext R1 (b) permit in exercise of powers under the Rules. 4. Sub-rule (3) of R.6 deals with the power of the Board of Revenue to effect transfer, alteration and closure of the shops. Sub-rule (3) is extracted below: "(3) It shall be competent to the Board of Revenue to order the transfer of shops from one site or locality to another site or locality or to alter the specified limits of any shop even during the currency of the contract or to order any shop to be closed in the interest of public peace or morality or on grounds of expediency and in such an event of transfer, alteration or closure, the contractor shall have no claim for compensation." The provisions contained in Sub-r.(3) paramountly uphold the interest of public peace and morality. Three events are contemplated in the Sub-rule; (i) transfer (ii) alteration and (iii) closure. The essential requirement for invoking this provision is that there shall be circumstances for the interest of public peace or morality or for the grounds of expediency. When these requirements are fulfilled then the Board of Revenue has the power (i) to transfer the shops from one site or locality to another site or locality (ii) to after the specified limits of any shops even during the currency of the contract and (iii) to order any shops to be closed. The ambit and scope of the wide powers available under this provision, persuade me to hold that the power under Sub-rule (3) can be exercised by the Board of Revenue suo motu or on application by an aggrieved person and I hold so. If any person is aggrieved by the location of a shop, in the interest of public peace and morality, he can seek the intervention of the Board of Revenue by filing an application in that behalf if the circumstances so warrant an action for transfer, alteration or closure. If any person is aggrieved by the location of a shop, in the interest of public peace and morality, he can seek the intervention of the Board of Revenue by filing an application in that behalf if the circumstances so warrant an action for transfer, alteration or closure. Likewise the licensee can also move the Board of Revenue to invoke the power under this provision if there are warranting circumstances. From the nature of the power conferred on the Board of Revenue it would reveal the exercise of such power will adversely affect the interest of others. But it need not be so in all cases. Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general rule that notice shall be issued to the parties in all cases when the power under this provision is proposed to be exercised by the Board of Revenue. However, it is totally dependant on the circumstances of each case. If the exercise of power prejudicially affects the interest of other persons, the fairness in administrative action demands the issue of pre-decisional notice to such parties. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed any petition or representation before the Board of Revenue against the transfer of the shops in this case. He has advanced all his contentions for the first time in this court. According to me, all those contentions should have been raised before the Board of Revenue and an adjudication should have been sought by it as provided in Sub-r.(3) of R.6. After considering all the aspects of the case, I am of the view that a fresh adjudication is necessary by the Board of Revenue in this case. While passing Ext. R1(b) the Board of Revenue has not applied its mind in so far as matters which ate required to be gone into while effecting transfer of the present shops to the alternative site. The proceedings of the Board of Revenue as per Ext. R1(b) can not be said to be proper in the circumstances of the case. However, it is evident that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent had not properly followed the procedure prescribed in the Rules. Therefore, I direct the Board of Revenue to re-consider the entire issue of transfer of the . shops from the existing shops to the alternate building. However, it is evident that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent had not properly followed the procedure prescribed in the Rules. Therefore, I direct the Board of Revenue to re-consider the entire issue of transfer of the . shops from the existing shops to the alternate building. This course of action is found to be necessary because there is failure to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules, The Board of Revenue shall issue notice to the petitioner and the 1st respondent before taking a final decision in the matter. Since the matter is very urgent, I direct the Board of Revenue to take a final decision within a period of two months from today as directed above. It is also made clear that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent are free to submit additional statement or representation in support of their respective claims, if necessary. With the above direction, the Original Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.