These two writ petitions have been preferred by the writ petitioners against the impugned order No. Ex.117/94/159 dated 30.4.94 and the impugned order No.Ex. 116/94/185 dated 30.4.94 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department settling the contract for wholesale supply of potable alcohol/rectified spirit (Grade I) in the Excise Warehouse at Jorhat for the period from 1.5.94 to 30.4 97 with respondent No.5. As both the writ petitions involve same issue for consideration and decision, same have been taken together for disposal. 2. Mr. AK Bhattacharyya for the petitioners and Mr. DN Chowdhury for the respondents led the entire arguments in both the cases. As the facts and allegations are similar the Court decides to dwell upon the common aspects of the case for a decision. 3. In Civil Rule No. 1703 of 1994, the petitioner, who is in the excise business since the year 1988 in the State was the settling contractor till 31.3.94 at Nazira Warehouse. The writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1601 of 1994, is in the excise business since 1987 and carrying out the said excise business in Lakhimpur Warehouse for supplying of potable/rectified spirit (Grade I). 4. In pursuance of a notice inviting tender dated 25.8.93, invited by respondent No.4, the Commissioner of Excise, Assam for the privilege of supplying for potable alcohol/rectified spirit (Grade I) to the different warehouses in the State, namely, Tinsukia, Jorhat, Nazira for supplying country spirit to the Retail Vendor for a period of three years and the petitioners submitted tenders by quoting their rate at Rs. 14.20 and Rs.13.91 respectively per LPL, other tenderers including respondent No.5 also with their respective rates filed their tenders. Last submission date for tender was fixed at 2 PM on 5.11.93 and along with 18 and 20 tenders respectively the petitioners submitted tenders for supply of the spirit to the Tinsukia, Nazira Warehouse. But the said Tinsukia Warehouse was settled with respondent No.5, whereas Nazira Warehouse was settled with respondent No.5 who in both the cases offered Rs.15.25 and Rs.15.25 respectively per LPL as against the rate of Rs.13.91 and Rs. 14.20 which was offered by the writ petitioners. 5. In both the cases, petitioners grievance is that the rate offered by the respondent No.5 as much higher rate in comparison to the valid reasonable rate of Rs. 13.91 and Rs. 14.20 which was offered by the writ petitioners. 5. In both the cases, petitioners grievance is that the rate offered by the respondent No.5 as much higher rate in comparison to the valid reasonable rate of Rs. 13.91 and Rs. 14.20 per LPL as offered by the petitioners. Further grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have fulfilled all the criteria as required under the law and is qualified to get the settlement whose names were recommended by the Commissioner and selection of the respondent No.5 for settlement of the said warehouses have been done arbitrarily and unfairly by pick and choose policy accepting much higher bid of the respondent No.5, without assigning any reason in rejecting the lower bid of the writ petitioners and that the respondent settling authority has deviated from the provisions of the Rules and procedure of the excises law and violated all the norms under Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore liable to be set aside on the ground of unreasonableness. It is also further contended that though the State has exclusive right to trade in liquor, the State cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largesse and cannot act in an unreasonable whimsical manner on extraneous considerations. It is also contended that by giving the settlement in favour of the respondent No.5, at much higher rate, the public interest have been effected, pushing the consumers to pay the high price to the benefit of respondent No.5 and causing loss to the Government revenue. Petitioners also maintain an apprehension that action of the respondent authority is going to create a situation in the liquor business where much scope has been opened to the lessees like the respondent No.5 to monopolise the business by fixing high price for individual profit at the stake of Government revenue. 6. Respondent No.5 and the opposite party No.2, Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department have filed affidavits-in-opposition. Respondents No.5 have averred that as they offered a most viable rate for settlement of the warehouse and finding them financially sound and experienced in the business with integrity, the authority awarded the contract in their favour. 6. Respondent No.5 and the opposite party No.2, Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department have filed affidavits-in-opposition. Respondents No.5 have averred that as they offered a most viable rate for settlement of the warehouse and finding them financially sound and experienced in the business with integrity, the authority awarded the contract in their favour. It is further averred that the name of the petitioners were not recommended as their rate was not viable for the management and operation of the warehouse, and that the fixation of viable rate has been made by the authority concerned within its jurisdiction keeping in view of the enhancement in excise revenue which is the main source of income to the Government, that the price of the spirit at source is a Vital consideration for the purpose of coming to a conclusion regarding the price and to that extent rate offered by the writ petitioners found not viable. The strenuous submission on behalf of the respondents is that fixation of price in settlement of a warehouse cannot be equated with that of the other prices such as essential consumer commodities and for the purpose of revenue collection from excise articles like potable liquor etc., the authority has a right to reject the lower rate for valid reasons and in such a case question of violation of fundamental rights does not arise at all and rate of spirit has nothing to do with the State exchequer as in such a case Govt. exchequer will be benefitted by receiving more sale tax on more sale proceeds of potable liquor, that the duty is realised by the State on the quality of the spirit sold and the question of earning large profits by monopolising the business can not arise as the Commissioner of Excise must have considered the price of the spirit at source, while deciding the viable rate so that only a marginal profit is given and State may not be deprived of the revenue. 7. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned settlement on the ground of arbitrary and discriminatory by violating all norms of natural justice and action on the part of the respondents and no reasons was shown for non settlement of the lease to the petitioner. Mr. 7. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned settlement on the ground of arbitrary and discriminatory by violating all norms of natural justice and action on the part of the respondents and no reasons was shown for non settlement of the lease to the petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharyya brought Court's attention to the report of the Department which, it was submitted, did not disclose any disqualification of the petitioner regarding his financial soundness in any manner, that petitioners fulfilled all the requirements required under the sale notice, that petitioners' selection only cancelled on the ground, as disclosed in the report, that no documents regarding cash balance was submitted. 8. From the record, it is seen that the report has been submitted by the Commissioner of Excise to the Government after receipt of the tenders as required under the provision of Rule 93 of the Rules. Apparently, though petitioners were found financially sound, no required documents regarding cash balance have been submitted. Attempt has been made by the learned counsel to show that in that case, authority acted arbitrarily by not giving proper opportunity to the petitioners to produce those documents. This submission of the learned counsel has been resisted as not sustainable on the ground that the petitioners - failed to submit required documents to support their cash balance and in case of the writ petitioner in Civil Rule 1703 of 1994 Rs,5,21,958.82 cannot be accepted as cash balance as this amount was shown as bill amount pending with the Excise Department. Regarding financial soundness, it is submitted, respondent No.5 Vijay Jasrasaria's cash position is more than Rs.73 lakhs in comparision with Rs.12 lakhs and odd of writ petitioner. Further, it is submitted, their offer were found not in conformity with the viable price as decided by the authority concerned. When similarly situated tenderers submitted their all documents required under the notice with financial soundness and other qualification it is open to the Government to select best one from the equals who fulfils all the requirements including the price offered by the tenderers, as viable price. When similarly situated tenderers submitted their all documents required under the notice with financial soundness and other qualification it is open to the Government to select best one from the equals who fulfils all the requirements including the price offered by the tenderers, as viable price. Further when any tenderer is found qualified and suitable and fulfils all the requirements, and authority chooses him, it can not be said that, the selection is arbitrary and against the principle of natural j ustice that petitioners offer can not be negotiated by asking to furnish required documents which the petitioners failed to do so depriving other equally situated person/persons. Apparently petitioners case was considered along with other tenderers and was found .not -suitable for non submission of documents regarding cash balance which was one of the required condition for proper and valid qualification and therefore it cannot be said that no reason was given in not giving settlement to the petitioners or the petitioners were not equally treated with the respondent No.5. 9. The question of reasonableness of viable price has been challenged strenuously throughout the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and it is submitted that the meaning of viable price is vague and that the respondent failed to give any reason and explanation on what basis and formula the respondent has decided a rate termed as 'viable rate'. In their affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No.2 has averred that the rates per LPL offered by the petitioners were below the cost price and the estimated price based on reasonable analysis did not deserve consideration as the same was not viable and workable. On perusal of the report submitted by the respondent No.4, it is seen that out of the tenderers the respondent No.5 was selected and his offer was accepted as his offer of rate was found viable. The concerned respondent has while worked out the viable price, worked put the likely financial involvement to the Excise Warehouses in question. The estimated annual consumption relaing to Jorhat Excise Warehouse was estimated 13,20,000 LPL approximately, prescribed minimum stock of the warehouse to be maintained is 1,00,000 LPL and average monthly consumption per month is also 1,10,000 LPL approximately. Likewise regarding Nazira Excise Warehouse annual consumption was estimated at Rs.9,60,000 LPL approximately. Accordingly probable landing cost of spirit per LPL is worked out are produced below : NAZIRA WAREHOUSE (A) 1. Likewise regarding Nazira Excise Warehouse annual consumption was estimated at Rs.9,60,000 LPL approximately. Accordingly probable landing cost of spirit per LPL is worked out are produced below : NAZIRA WAREHOUSE (A) 1. Distillery cost price (copy of Distillery bill enclosed). Rs. 15.00 per LPL 2. Export pass fee Rs. 5.00 per B.L. 3. CST@Rs.4% of Rs.20.00 Rs. .80 per B.L. 4. Transportation fee Rs. 1.80 per B.L. 5. Transit Wastage 1% Rs. .23 per B.L. 6. Warehouse Wastage 1-½% Rs. .34 per B.L. 7. Charge for establishment etc for Rs.28,333/- Rs. .21 per B.L. Total Rs. 23.38 per B.L. Costing per LPL =23.38 +1.65= Rs. 14.16 per LPL + profit @10%= Rs. 01.41 per LPL Total Rs. 15.57 per LPL (B) 1. Initial financial involvement on average monthly issue of storage reserved spirit for (3 months= 80,000 x 15,57) x 3 Rs. 37,36,800.00 2. Security Deposit Rs. 40,000.00 3. Licence fee Rs. 1,00,000.00 4. Warehouse properties Rs. 23,950.00 5. Establishment charge for maintenance by Contractor for months (10,000x3) Rs. 30,000.00 6. Administration charge etc of Contractor for two months (8,000 x 3) Rs. 24,000.00 Total Rs. 39,54,750.00 i.e. around rupees = 39.50 lacs JORHAT WAREHOUSE (A) 1. Distillery cost price (copy of Distillery bill enclosed). Rs. 15.00 per LPL 2. Export pass fee Rs. 5.00 per B.L. 3. CST @ Rs.4% on Rs.20.00 Rs. .80 per B.L. 4. Transportation fee - Rs. 1.65 per BL 5. Transit Wastage 1% Rs. .23 per BL 6. Warehouse Wastage 1-½% Rs. .34 per BL 7. Charge for establishment etc of Rs.28.333.00 PM Rs. 21.00 per BL Total Rs. 23.23 per BL Consting per LPL -23.23 +1.65= Rs. 14.08 per LPL + profit @ 10%= Rs.01.41 per LPL Total Rs. 15.49 per LPL (B) 1. Initial financial involvement on average monthly issue of storage reserved spirit for (3 months= (1,10.000 x 15.49 x 3) Rs. 51,11,800.00 2. Security Deposite Rs. 40,000.00 3. Licence fee Rs. 1,00,000.00 4. Warehouse properties Rs. 22,000.00 5. Establishment charge for maintenance by Contractor for months (10,000x3) Rs, 30,000.00 6. Administration charge etc of Contractor for three months (10,000x3) Rs. 30,000.00 Total Rs. 53,33,700.00 10. 51,11,800.00 2. Security Deposite Rs. 40,000.00 3. Licence fee Rs. 1,00,000.00 4. Warehouse properties Rs. 22,000.00 5. Establishment charge for maintenance by Contractor for months (10,000x3) Rs, 30,000.00 6. Administration charge etc of Contractor for three months (10,000x3) Rs. 30,000.00 Total Rs. 53,33,700.00 10. As seen in the report minimum fund required for undertaking the contract for supply of country spirit to the warehouse would be about Rs.53.33 lacs in Jorhat Excise Warehouse and Rs.39.54 lacs in case of Nazira Excise Warehouse and accordingly financial soundness was fixed Rs.50 lacs in case of Jorhat Warehouse and Rs.39 lacs in case of Nazira Warehouse and viable rate was fixed Rs.15.57 in case of Nazira Warehouse and Rs.15.49 in case of Jorhat Warehouse respectively. 11. From the above, it is seen that the Government has come out a probale price which would enable the Govt. capable of keeping the potable spirit supply smoothly and to meet the pressure from the contractors, to raise the rate, as has been done by the peitioner (Lakhimpur Warehouse) raising initial rate from Rs.11 to present rate Rs.18. Certainly Govt. has the discretion to find out a feasible rate to keep the supply of spirit in continuity as its business in potable spirit is important monopoly business which as submitted by Mr. Chowdhury, the Govt. cannot disrupted causing loss to the public profit. Mr. Bhattacharyya' s submission that this enhancement of rate claiming to be a feasible rate, prejudice the public interest is not sustainable as the Govt. has the discretion, to protect the public interest, to increase or decrease the rate if it found, with reasoned calculation that a particular rate is a viable rate to keep the Govt. trade/business in smooth running. In a series of decisions the Apex Court has laid down the law that in some business like liquor, the State has power to control over it to do its business with its discretion. In such cases the Court can review only the decision making process in giving contract as public largesse. In the case of (1995) 1 SCC 574 (Khoday Distilleries & others vs. State of Kamataka), the Apex Court while deciding the monopolistic right of the State regarding liquor business held that a citizen have no fundamental right to trade in liquor as a beverage, that activities which are "res extra commercium" cannot be carried out by any citizen. In the case of (1995) 1 SCC 574 (Khoday Distilleries & others vs. State of Kamataka), the Apex Court while deciding the monopolistic right of the State regarding liquor business held that a citizen have no fundamental right to trade in liquor as a beverage, that activities which are "res extra commercium" cannot be carried out by any citizen. Enunciating guideline, the Apex Court further held that as the business in liquor is res-extra commercium, State can create monopoly in itself and can operate and manage through its agency selected by it, for manufacture, possession, sale and distribution of the liquor as beverage and also sale the licences to the citizens for the said purpose by charging fees. But the guidelines lay down that, when the State permits the trade business, in the potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade, subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot make the discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade. If unreasonableness at large alleged requires to raise the veil to see the unreasonableness and discrimination in a given case and review the State action so that arbitrary/discriminating action can be set at right in consonance with the Article 14 of the Constitution. In the case of (1994) 6 SSC 651 (Tata Cellular vs. Union of India), the Apex Court held that only the decision making process, not the merit of the decision itself is reviewable that while exerising power of review, Court cannot interfere with Government's freedom of contract, inviting tender and refusal of any tender which pertains to policy matter. The test is whether the wrong is of such a nature as to required intervention and would set right the decision making process, but would not substitute its own opinion. On the same reason, mere power to choose cannot be termed arbitrary. Naturally Government as the controller of the trade which is source of the significant revenue, has an interest in selecting the best agent and contractor, until and unless allegation of collateral, arbitrary purpose is established to invoke the applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution. On the same reason, mere power to choose cannot be termed arbitrary. Naturally Government as the controller of the trade which is source of the significant revenue, has an interest in selecting the best agent and contractor, until and unless allegation of collateral, arbitrary purpose is established to invoke the applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further held that the Government is the guardian of the finances of the State, and therefore is expected to protect the financial interest of the State, that the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government, subject to the principle laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution, which have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. In the case of Starling Company Ltd. vs. M & N Publication, (1993) 1 SCC 446) similar view was taken by their Lordship and held that though the public authorities have some discretions in giving contract having commercial element, the discretion is not absolute and must be ground by some norms and procedures in public interest. It is further held that decision making process in such cases is always open to judicial review. This view has also been relied in the case of New Horizons Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 and in a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (1995) 2 GLR 66 [1995 (2) GLJ 466] (Dolloo TE vs. State of Assam). In AIR 1972 SC 1816 (State of Orissa vs. Hari Narayan) the view held by their Lordships is that rejection by Government of highest bid in auction for sale of country liquor not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution nor is subject to judicial review. 12. From the foregoing discussion, it can be held that State being the guardian of the State finance, has the principal interest in increasing the source of revenue, by fixing viable rate/price, which found workable in a situation faced normally by the authority concerned such as default in payment or subsequent insistence to raise rate which result in shortage of supply of potable spirit from outside the State. I agree with Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that fixation of feasible rate is required for the purpose of preventing irregular spirit supply, with the pretext of inadequate price fixation, by accepting lower price. I agree with Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that fixation of feasible rate is required for the purpose of preventing irregular spirit supply, with the pretext of inadequate price fixation, by accepting lower price. The fixation of rate offered by the respondent No.5 is workable and such fixation is within the jurisdiction of the respondent authority for the public interests. Relying on the ratio as enunciated in the case of (1991) 3 SCC 91 (GB Mahajan & others vs. Jalgaon Municipal Corporation) it can be held that Government or its instrumentalities have policy options and discretion to adopt a rate found to be viable for enhancement of Government revenue. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner agitated much regarding the financial soundness of the writ petitioners and the Court was led to the reports of the respondent No.4 in which the petitioners was found financially sound. It was alleged that the settlement to the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that statement regarding financial soundness were not supported by any documents which were required to be submitted along with the tender. Therefore, it was submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to produce those documents. Mr. Sahewalla learned counsel for the respondent No.5, submitted that when the relevant papers were submitted by other tenderers as required under clause 6 of the tender form including respondent No.5, was found qualified, in all respects, the official respondent cannot be expected to ask the petitioner to produce the relevant documents subsequently as it would have been a case of settlement by negotiation against the right and interest of other tenderers, including respondent No.5. I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Sahewalla, as tenderers were required to produce the relevant papers along with the tender under the terms and conditions of the tender and no special opportunity should be given while it was found that other tenders were found equal and well equipped with required documents. Therefore in my view, the settlement in favour of the respondent No.5 cannot be said to be vitiated and liable to be set aside for not giving opportunity to the petitioner when (admitted position is that in support of his financial soundness) petitioner failed to annex the required document along with the tender, which is a requirement inserted in clause 6 of the tender form. Further report shows that the respondent No.5 in Civil Rule No. 1601 of 1994 found financial in better position that the writ petitioner. 14. Documents, repeatedly pointed out by Mr. Chowdhury that, the writ petitioner who is also the settlement holder of Lakhimpur Excise Warehouse, initially offered lower rate of Rs. 11.00 while the same was settled with him but subsequently it has been raised, during the settlement period, and presently in Lakhimpur Excise Warehouse the petitioner has raised the rate from initial rate of Rs. 11.00 per LPL to Rs. 18.00 presently which shows that offer of minimum rate required to be raised to that rate which was found viable in his case at Lakhimpur Excise Warehouse. The rate shown in the report, apparently is the future rate, and trend of the increasing rates shown therein indicates that at the relevant time, the viable rate sure to reach the rate of Rs. 15.55 and onwards. Therefore, petitioner's offer of minimum rate could not be maintained as viable rate and therefore to find out a workable rate after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the sustainable rate is very necessary for proper and smooth functioning of the supply in the warehouse and to keep the Govt. revenue intermittantly uniterrupted against usual claim for enhancement of rate by the settlement holders. 15. The agrument offered on behalf of the petitioner that the high rate accepted by the respondent is against the public interest which put the poor customers at hardship is not sustainable at all as the alcohol cannot be an essential commodities and its minimisation of price cannot benefit the common consumer at large. Even State has the discretion to control the consumption of liquor as a beverage by enhancing the rate of potable spirit which is inherently dangerous beverage for health. Consumption of liquor is always disouraged and for this reason, State has taken up the business as monopoly trade under its exclusive control and therefore equation of liquor with other consumer products is not acceptable. A citizen has no fundamental right to get a settlement which relates to obnoxious trade. The argument highlighting the loss of revenue also has no consonance with the settlement of excise warehouse at high rate. 16. A citizen has no fundamental right to get a settlement which relates to obnoxious trade. The argument highlighting the loss of revenue also has no consonance with the settlement of excise warehouse at high rate. 16. The petitioners have made an attempt to show the loss of Govt revenue by Rs.78 lacks in total which is against the public interest by making calculation from the difference of rate offered by both the petitioners and respondent No.5. The question of loss of revenue does not arise as the State Government is not required to pay the price of spirit. The excise duty on spirit is fixed irrespective of price which the State Government is bound to get. Moreover, the State Government imposes sales tax on the sale of spirit and if the price of spirit is higher, the income from sales tax will be more and the State Government would earn more revenue. The price is to be paid by a class of consumers who consume spirit and the entire expenditure is borne by the contractors and not by the Government. Therefore, in view of the above reason I hold that the argument is not sustainable that due to high price of liquor, the-State revenue shall suffer in which public interest is involved. 17. Next point agitated by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the a petitioner was that the writ petitioners have been discriminated in distribution of State largesse and in support of this submission referred Kasturilal's case ( AIR 1980 SC 1992 ). 18. Before proceeding to examine the case in hand an examination is necessary to see whether excise contracts also includes State largesse. In a series of decisions the law enunciated is that when the monopoly business is made open to citizens, it is certainly takes the nature of State largesse and in that case this State largessee be opened to all citizen following the principle under Article 14 of the Constitution. To raise the veil of allegation of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, the Court can review such allegation in process making and not the decision as an appellate authority. 19. In this case in hand the question for examination is whether the petitioners were discriminated in settling the warehouse in question. The ratio of the Kasturilal's case is the established law which has been followed in a catena of decisions as guidelines. 19. In this case in hand the question for examination is whether the petitioners were discriminated in settling the warehouse in question. The ratio of the Kasturilal's case is the established law which has been followed in a catena of decisions as guidelines. In the light of the facts and circumstances of this case much arguments have been made to impress upon the Court as to whether the process making of the respondent Govt. is liable to be set aside as unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Regarding the fixation of a viable rate, this Court's finding as discussed above is that, it is within the jurisdiction of the concerned authority to make out a viable rate. Regarding discriminatory and lack of opportunity it is seen that the petitioners' case were considered and found financially sound, but consideration of his tender found deficient as they failed to produce the required documents in support of their financial soundness. As stated above proper opportunity to produce the same for consideration cannot arise when the conditions for the same in the tender was clear and specific. From the report of the respondent it cannot be said that the petitioners were first among the equals and therefore disqualified for non furnishing of required documents and further respondent No. 5 - V. Jasrasaria was found more financially sound. Therefore, I found no materials i.e. interefere with the settlement of the Jorhat and Nazira Excise Warehouse in favour of the respective respondent No.5 in both the cases, which were not vitiated for lack of reasonableness and public interest and the selection of the respondent Nos.5 in both the cases satisfy both the test as propounded by the Apex Court in the Kasturilal's case (supra). Further considering the question of loss of Government revenue effecting the public interest, I hold that the first and formost responsibility of the Government is to earn more revenue to its exchequer for public purpose and it rightly fixed the viable rate which will bring more revenue through sale tax. In the case of Noble Sales Agency, 1991 (2) GLJ 108 the Division Bench of this Court held that Government is not bound to accept lowest tender but to act fairly. In the case of Noble Sales Agency, 1991 (2) GLJ 108 the Division Bench of this Court held that Government is not bound to accept lowest tender but to act fairly. The ratio as referred in a series of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court is that even in settling and dealing in excise settlement explanation of Govt. is not required. Being the excise business is res-extra commercium as decided by the Apex Court in the case of Koday Distillery, (1995) 1 SCC 574 it is within the discretion of the Govt. to raise the rate of settlement and such enhancement a cannot be said to be against the interest of the common consumer, as consumption of liquor cannot take the place of essential commodities for the common people at large. 20. In view of foregoing discussion I uphold the settlement in favour of respondent No.5 in both the Civil Rules and accordingly dismiss both the writ petitions. As regard costs I direct the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions (Civil Rule 1601 and 1703 of 1994) to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) each to the respondent No.5 (in both the writ applications) as costs. In the result both the writ petitions are dismissed.