JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The writ petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for directing opp. parties 1 and 2 to treat his exclusive privilege and licence granted in respect of Koraput No. 1 Foreign Liquor Off shop as surrendered, to quash the demand raised by opp. party No. 4 under Annexure-8 and to direct opp, parties 1 and 2 to refund advance consideration money with interest for the months of November and December, 1994. 2. Foreign Liquor Koraput No. I and III 'Off shops were offered in a lot for licence for the year 1993-94. Manish Sahu, opp. party No. 3, took licence of the said two shops in a lot on a consideration of Rs. 24,000/- for shop No. I and Rs. 6,000/- for shop No. III. It was obvious that the consideration money for shop No. Ill was fixed at a much lower rate, because in the same area shop No. I was being operated on a consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. Though opp. party No. 3 took licence for both the Off shops Nos. I and III, he in fact operated only Off shop No. I did not operate shop No. III. The Excise Policy for 1994-95 provided that if the existing licensee did not opt for renewal of licence, the same would be offered and settled with others through the process of tender-cum-auction-cum-negotiation. By Notification dated November 10, 1993 (Annexure - 2) the State Government amended relevant Government Order dated April 23, 1990 by inserting a new Clause, namely : "(ix) When an exclusive privilege holder shall not apply for renewal of exclusive privilege already granted to him for a shop or a group of shops, the exclusive privilege already granted shall be discontinued and the shop or group of shops shall be settled by fresh tender-cum-auction system." Opp. party No. 3 cleverly did not apply for renewal of Off shop No. I for 1994-95 and applied for renewal of only shop No. Ill having lower consideration amount. As opp. party No. 3 did not opt for renewing licence of both the shops in a lot, the State Government refused renewal of only one shop, i.e. shop No. III. By a sale notice dated May 6, 1994 foreign liquor Off shops Nos. As opp. party No. 3 did not opt for renewing licence of both the shops in a lot, the State Government refused renewal of only one shop, i.e. shop No. III. By a sale notice dated May 6, 1994 foreign liquor Off shops Nos. I and HI in the district of Koraput were put to auction on May 25, 1994. Petitioner offered highest bid for No. I Off shop and obtained licence thereof on a monthly consideration of Rs. 26,500/- in accordance with the procedure. Petitioner deposited two months' consideration money in advance (consideration money Rs. 53,000). The opp. party No. 3 applied for licence for Koraput No. Ill Off shop only. By a message dated July 7, 1994 (Annexure-4) the State Government intimated the Excise Commissioner to shift the location of Koraput Foreign Liquor Shop No. Ill to Kolab Nagar for the remaining period of 1994-95. opp. party No. 3 filed a writ petition being OJC No. 5099/94 in this Court challenging non-renewal of his licence in respect of No. Ill Off shop and the decision to shift the No. Ill Off shop to Kolab Nagar. By judgment dated September 21, 1994 this Court directed the Collector, Koraput to issue licence for No. Ill shop in favour of O.P.No. 3. It has been alleged in the present writ petition that opp, party No. 3 obtained the said order by suppressing material facts. In pursuance of the said order opp. party No. 3 was given licence of Off Shop No. Ill on a monthly consideration of Rs. 6,000/- only. After obtaining licence of Off Shop No. Ill opp. party No. 3 did not open the said shop at the previous location of Off Shop No. Ill, but opened the said shop only 50 meters away from the petitioner's shop No. I. The situation of the two shops within the same exclusive privilege area, settlement of Off Shop No. I at a higher rate and settlement of Off Shop No. Ill at a much lower rate gave rise to an anomalous and unjust situation. As opp. party No. 3 opened his Off Shop at a distance of only 50 meters from the petitioner's Off Shop No. I and the consideration money for Off Shop No. Ill was much lower than Off Shop No. I. petitioner found it impossible to compete with opp. party No. 3. As opp. party No. 3 opened his Off Shop at a distance of only 50 meters from the petitioner's Off Shop No. I and the consideration money for Off Shop No. Ill was much lower than Off Shop No. I. petitioner found it impossible to compete with opp. party No. 3. On October 31, 1994 petitioner filed a representation intimating his intention to surrender his licence and to close his shop from November 1, 1994. Petitioner, in fact, closed his shop from November 1, 1994. A demand notice dated November 7, 1994 was served on the petitioner demanding consideration money for the months of October and November, 1994 amounting. 3. A counter has been filed on behalf of Collector, Koraput being opp. party No. 2. The material facts stated in the writ petition have not been disputed in the said counter. There is no dispute that the Government decided to shift Off Shop No. Ill to Kolab Nagar, but because of this Court's order in OJC No. 5099/94 the Government could not implement that decision and had to settle Off Shop No. Ill in favour of opp. party No. 3, However, it has been contended that the petitioner closed his shop in an unauthorised manner and such closure could not exempt the petitioner from his liability to pay the consideration amount. 4. Opp. party No. 4, Superintendent of Excise, Koraput filed a separate counter affidavit, opp. party No. 4 had taken the stand that the petitioner could not surrender his licence without giving one month's notice to the opp. parties. 5. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of this case as stated hereinabove that the decision to offer the said shops in a lot was a correct and a rational decision. It is wholly unreasonable to offer two shops in the same area at different points of time to different persons and for different considerations. There cannot be any rational reason for settlement of one shop at Rs. 26,500/- and subsequently another shop within 50 meters at a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. However such licence for Off Shop No. Ill was granted to opp. party No. 3 under order of this Court and we cannot blame the authorities for such renewal. There cannot be any rational reason for settlement of one shop at Rs. 26,500/- and subsequently another shop within 50 meters at a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. However such licence for Off Shop No. Ill was granted to opp. party No. 3 under order of this Court and we cannot blame the authorities for such renewal. But in the situation arising therefrom, the petitioner was left with no other alternative than to surrender his licence and close down his shop, inasmuch as it was obviously impossible for the petitioner to survive in such an unfair competition. In our view, the petitioner acted pruderftly and rightly in deciding to surrender his licence and to close his shop after due intimation. We do not find any justification for the demand of the consideration money for November onwards in view of the undisputed position that the petitioner in fact closed his shop from November 1, 1994. 6. It is well settled that no one should suffer because of any unreasonable and unjustified action of the administration, particularly when the person concerned is in no way responsible for the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, we are satisfied that the attitude and action of the administration is unreasonable and unfair. 7. Petitioner had already paid the consideration money upto October, 1994 and this fact is admitted by O.P No. 2 in his counter. Two months' advance consideration ws lying in deposit with the authorities. It was impossible for the petitioner to run his Off Shop No.I because of the situation as stated hereinabove. In such circumstances, it was not possible on the part of the petitioner to give one month's notice as required under the terms of the licence. We are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get back the advance consideration money paid by him. However, we do not propose to allow any interest on the aforesaid amount of advance. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the demand under Annexure-8 is set aside and opp. parties Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are directed to refund Rs. 53,000/- (the advance consideration money admittedly paid by the petitioner) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. D.M. Patnaik, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed