Judgment D.P. Wadhwa, C.J. The petitioner holding a licence in Form 28 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (for short. the Act) for manufacture of spirit in its distillery (for supply of the same for further manufacture of country spirit) has challenged actions of the respondents in permitting those distilleries having licence in Form 28A for the manufacture of spirit in their distilleries (for use in the manufacture of Chemical and for Industrial, Scientific and other purposes) for use of the same now also for the manufacture of country liquor. The petitioner says that only that distillery having licence in Form 28 has exclusive privilege to supply the spirit for manufacture of country liquor. The Commissioner of Excise, Bihar, did not agree with the submissions of the petitioner holding that there was no restriction limiting the supply of spirit only from distilleries having licence under Form 28 and excluding the distilleries under Form 28A. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision under section 8 (3) of the Act, before the Board of Revenue, Bihar. The Board held that the phrase "and other purposes" occuring in the text at the top of Form 28A did not exclude supply of spirit by holders of licenses in Form 28 A, to persons holding exclusive privilege under section 22 of the Act, for wholesale supply of country spirit. This section 22 provides for grant of exclusive privilege of manufacture and sale of country liquor, intoxicating drugs, denatured spirit or any other intoxicant. The Board, therefore, dismissed the revision petition. These are the orders which are challenged before us in this writ application. 2. Mr. Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the phrase "and other purposes' in Form 28A has to be read ejusdem generis and that will mean that the supply of spirit manufactured in the distillery holding licence under Form 28A could be made only for the manufacture of chemical and for industrial and similar purposes and not for the manufacture of country liquor. He further submitted that the law prohibited the use of industrial alcohol (spirit) which was manufactured by holder of licence under Form 28A of production of country liquor. 3. As far as the first point is concerned, if we refer to rule 3A (b) of the Rules framed by the Board of Revenue under Section 90 of the Act, it will appear that the argument of Mr. 3. As far as the first point is concerned, if we refer to rule 3A (b) of the Rules framed by the Board of Revenue under Section 90 of the Act, it will appear that the argument of Mr. Giri is correct. Under this rule, distilleries may be opened for- (1) supply of country spirit, (2) supply of foreign liquor, (3) supply of spirit for the manufacture of chemicals, medicated articles etc., or for other industrial purposes; and (4) any or all of the above purposes combined. Referring to serial number (3) above, it would appear that Form 28A is for manufacture of spirit for use in the manufacture of chemical and for industrial, scientific and for other industrial purposes. This we think how the terms "for other purpose" as appearing in the title of Form 28A should be read which is in consonance with the term "for other industrial purposes" as given in serial (3) of Rule 3A (b) of the Rules. 4. But then that also does not conclude the matter. The question that still arises is if there is any bar in law that spirit manufactured by a distillery having a licence in Form 28A cannot be diverted for manufacture of country liquor. In support of his submission Mr. Giri referred to three decisions of the Supreme Court-(1) Synthetics & Chemical Ltd. V. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1927 (2) Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujrat (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 872 = 1992 (2) SCC 42 ) and (3) State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd.: (1993) 2 SCC 308 . These decisions do not appear to advance the case of the petitioner and rather go against the argument raised by Mr. Giri. In the first case (in para 73 of the judgment) the Supreme Court has said that industrial alcohol cannot be used for human consumption but could be used as raw material in-put after processing and substantial dilution in the production of whisky, gin, country liquor etc. In this case the Court was concerned with the right of the State to levy new fee or duties in respect of industrial alcohol under different legislation in different States. In this case the Court was concerned with the right of the State to levy new fee or duties in respect of industrial alcohol under different legislation in different States. The Court examined various provisions of the Constitution and that of the Industries (Regulation and Development) Act, 1951 and then said with reference to the power of the State to legislate in respect of alcohol as under (para 85) :- a) it may pass any legislation in the nature of prohibition of potable liquor referable to entry 6 of list II and regulating powers. (b) it may lay down regulations to ensure that non-potable alcohol is not diverted and misused as a substitute for potable alcohol. (c) the State may charge excise duty on potable alcohol and sales tax under entry 52 of list II. However, sales tax cannot be charged on industrial alcohol in the present case, because under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Orders, sales tax cannot be charged by the State on industrial alcohol. (d) However, in case State is rendering any service as, distinct from its claim of so-called grant of privilege, it may charge fees based on quid pro quo." In this the court has merely defined the powers of State to lay down regulations so that the industrial alcohol is not diverted and misused as a substitute for potable alcohol. There is thus no bar if the State Government allows the spirit manufactured by a distillery holding licence in Form 28A for production of country liquor. 5. The second judgment merely affirms what has been said above. 6. The third judgment would rather show that the State Government is perhaps not Competent to issue licence in Form 28A which is in the domain of the Central Government. It would appear that in similar circumstances the Allahabad High Court held, "that the Central Government has the exclusive power to grant a licence for the manufacture of industrial alcohol. It is not necessary for the petitioner to obtain a PD-2 licence from the Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad before starting its distillery for the manufacture of industrial alcohol. The provisions in the U.P. Excise Manual relating to taking of PD-2 licence are not applicable to a case where a person wants to manufacture industrial alcohol. It is not necessary for the petitioner to obtain a PD-2 licence from the Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad before starting its distillery for the manufacture of industrial alcohol. The provisions in the U.P. Excise Manual relating to taking of PD-2 licence are not applicable to a case where a person wants to manufacture industrial alcohol. The other provisions of the Act, and Rules of the U.P. Excise Act, and Manual and applicable in order to ensure that industrial alcohol is not converted into potable alcohol." This has been approved by the Supreme Court. The interpretation of the term "other purposes" in licence in Form 28A therefore, loses all its significance. We have not been shown any rule or law prohibiting the State Government from diverting the supply of spirit manufactured by distillery in Form 28A for the manufacture of country liquor. Mr. Giri did attempt to draw support from Rules 28 to 32 of the Rules framed by the Board of Revenue and Sections 18 and 49 of the Act. Section 18 bars a person from possessing any intoxicant not obtained from a licensed vendor. Intoxicant means any liquor as well (Sec 2 (12a). Section 49 provides for penalty for altering or attempting to alter any denatured spirit. On this argument was based that since conversion of spirit manufactured for industrial or chemical purposes for country liquor would itself be an offence under section 49, the State Government could not permit the same. Section 49 applies to conversion of denatured spirit for any other use for human consumption. Denatured spirit is not industrial alcohol or that spirit which is manufactured by the distilleries holding Form 28A licence. Under Section 2 (5) (b) "to denature" means to mix spirit with one or more denaturants in such manner as may be prescribed and "denatured spirit" means spirit so mixed. "Denaturant" under Section 2 (5) (a) means any substance as may be prescribed under the Rules for admixture with spirit in order to render the mixture unfit for human consumption. On the other hand, as seen above, the industrial alcohol or spirit manufactured by distilleries holding licence under Form 28A can be processed for conversion into country liquor,. Rules 28 to 32 which have been relied upon by Mr. Giri deal with issue (supply) of spirit from distilleries and warehouses. On the other hand, as seen above, the industrial alcohol or spirit manufactured by distilleries holding licence under Form 28A can be processed for conversion into country liquor,. Rules 28 to 32 which have been relied upon by Mr. Giri deal with issue (supply) of spirit from distilleries and warehouses. They do not contain any prohibition whereby State Government cannot allow the use of spirit manufactured by Form 28A distilleries for the manufacture of country liquor. Regulatory powers vest with the State Government. 7. This application, therefore, is discharged. Application dismissed.