JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - A pub is normally the hub. The government of Haryana seems to recognize this truth. It has given a licence to respondent No. 5. The petitioner feel aggrieved. They allege that the respondent is not eligible. They pray that the order dated July 10, 2001 passed by the Commissioner be annulled. The short question is - Has the authority erred in providing a Bar for the people of Hissar? 2. First, the relevant facts. A wine contractor and two residents of Hissar are the petitioners in these two cases. The 5th respondent viz. M/s Lido Restaurant is the common target. It is alleged that the said restaurant does not have the "facilities or clientele at par with those available in restaurants attached to three-star hotels and duly approved by the Hotels and Restaurants Approval and Classification Committee". Thus, it does not conform to the requirements of Para 41(i) of the Excise Policy for the year 2001-2002 for the grant of L-4 and L-5 licences. The respondent does not also have "a proper marked parking area with security". The finding of the authority that "the parameters given in the Excise Policy of the year 2000-2001 which is applicable to the year 2001-2002 are met in case of application of M/s Lido Restaurant, Hissar", is untenable. Thus, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana has erred in passing the order dated July 10, 2001. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.9 with CWP No. 10956 of 2001 and as Annexure P.10 with CWP No. 10957 of 2001. The petitioners pray that this order be quashed. 3. In response to the notice of motion, a short written statement has been filed in CWP No. 10956 of 2001. Initially, it was stated that the reply filed in the first case be treated as adopted in the second case as well. Since the matter was adjourned on August 6, 2001 to August 9, 2001, a separate reply has been filed even in the second case. For the purposes of these cases, the averments as made in the short reply filed in CWP No. 10956 of 2001 alone are being noticed. 4. The 5th respondent maintains that the petitioners have no cause for grievance. For the purposes of these cases, the averments as made in the short reply filed in CWP No. 10956 of 2001 alone are being noticed. 4. The 5th respondent maintains that the petitioners have no cause for grievance. Relying on the decision in CWP No. 14936 of 1999, it is stated that a person who holds L-2 and L-14A licences (like the petitioner in the present case) gets no cause for complaint when an L-4/L-5 licence is given to a person. Still further, the respondent points out that it was "certified as a duly approved restaurant by the Government of India on the recommendation of the HRACC (Hotels and Restaurant Approval and Classification Committee)." A copy of the letter dated June 14, 1999 has been produced as Annexure R.5/2 with the written statement. After this approval, the respondent had filed an application for the grant of licence. To thwart this, a civil suit was filed by a liquor licensee - M/s Hindustan Wine Company and two other persons at Hissar seeking a permanent injunction for restraining the State of Haryana from granting any Bar licence in Form L-4/L-5 to the respondent. The civil court had granted an ad interim injunction. It was subsequently vacated on August 6, 1999. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Additional District Judge had granted stay vide order dated August 14, 1999. The matter was finally decided by this Court in Civil Revision No. 4037 of 1999 vide order dated September 30, 1000. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.2 with the writ petition. It was inter-alia held that the Commissioner/competent authority shall decide the matter within a period of 10 days after considering the objections raised by the plaintiffs. 5. The competent authority had rejected the application on the ground that the proposed site was situated at a distance of 58 meters from the Bus-stand. Aggrieved by the order dated October 10, 1999 passed by the authority, the respondent had filed an appeal, which was dismissed on May 11, 2000. CWP No. 9016 of 2000 was filed. It was allowed vide judgment dated October 30, 2000. The orders dated October 10, 1999 and May 11, 2000 were quashed. 6. Thereafter, a fresh application for the grant of a licence was submitted on January 8, 2001. It was rejected vide order dated January 30, 2001. The fifth respondent filed CWP No. 2382 of 2001. It was allowed vide judgment dated October 30, 2000. The orders dated October 10, 1999 and May 11, 2000 were quashed. 6. Thereafter, a fresh application for the grant of a licence was submitted on January 8, 2001. It was rejected vide order dated January 30, 2001. The fifth respondent filed CWP No. 2382 of 2001. This writ petition was again allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated March 13, 2001. A copy of this judgment is at Annexure P.8 with the writ petition. Thereafter, the license has been granted vide order dated July 10, 2001. It is in conformity with the provisions of Rule 37(9) of the Haryana Liquor Licence Rules, 1970. It conforms to the requirements of the policy of the Government. The Chief Sanitary Inspector and the Municipal Council, Hissar had also issued certificate. On these premises, the respondent prays that the writ petition has no merit and that it may be dismissed. 7. Mr. Hira Lal Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under the provisions of the policy, the restaurant should have the facilities, which are at par with those of a restaurant in a three-star hotel. It should be functioning. In the present case, the 5th respondent does not conform to these requirements. The restaurant is not functional. Two FIRs had been registered against the respondent in the year 1991. Thus, no licence could have been granted to respondent No. 5. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners was controverted by the counsel for the respondents. 8. The short issue that arises for consideration is - Has the competent authority erred in granting the impugned licence to the 5th respondent ? 9. Copies of the extract from the "announcements to be made at the time of the auction of licences for Retail Vends have been collectively produced as Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. Mr. Sibal referred to para 41(i) of the announcements. It reads as under :- 41(i) "L-4/L-5 licences shall be granted to the tourist complexes run by Haryana Tourism Corporation, Restaurants having 3 star and above rating and restaurants of repute situated in and around the big cities having facilities/clientele at par with those available in restaurants attached to three star hotels and duly approved by Hotels and Restaurants Approval and Classification Committee (HRACC). A district level committee shall be constituted having three members namely a nominee of Dy. Commissioner not below the rank of City Magistrate/SDM, a representative of Haryana Tourism Department and Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Excise) in-charge of the district. Licences to private restaurants shall be given on the recommendation of this committee". A perusal of the above shows that restaurants in big cities are eligible for the grant of L-4/L-5 licence. They should have facilities and clientele, which should be at par with those available in the restaurants attached to three- star hotels. Still further, the restaurant should have been approved by the Hotels and Restaurant Approval and Classification Committee. The case of a private restaurant is considered on the recommendation of the duly constituted committee. 10. Mr. Sibal contended that the policy lays down conditions of eligibility. These have to be strictly fulfilled. Respondent No. 5 does not conform to these standards. Thus, it was not eligible for the grant of the impugned licence. 11. After hearing the counsel at length, it appears that the documents produced by the petitioners do not embody the terms of any statutory policy. These have not to be literally construed like the provisions of an Act of a legislature. These are the broad guidelines. The concerned authority has to consider the case in the light of these parameters. While doing so, the situation at site is a relevant factor. The case cannot be considered in the abstract. The actual conditions prevailing at different places cannot be overlooked. The requirements and the provisions can vary from place to place. The standards, which may be expected by the customers in a Metropolitan city, may not be strictly applicable to a smaller town. We cannot forget the fact that parts of India are still backward. Even potable water is not available. 12. What is the position in the present case ? Hissar is not a metropolitan city. The number of persons going to restaurants may not be very large. It has not even been suggested that there is any worthwhile hotel much less than a three or four-star hotel in the city. It has also not been suggested that there is any restaurant better than the fifth respondent in the town. Hissar is not a metropolitan city. The number of persons going to restaurants may not be very large. It has not even been suggested that there is any worthwhile hotel much less than a three or four-star hotel in the city. It has also not been suggested that there is any restaurant better than the fifth respondent in the town. In this situation, it appears that the conditions embodied in Para 41 as noticed above, only embody the broad parameters which a restaurant must fulfil before it can be considered for the allotment of a liquor licence. Thus, we have to basically determine as to whether or not the 5th respondent complies with the above-noted requirements. 13. Admittedly, the restaurant has been in existence since the year 1969. It was granted L-4/L-5 licence in the year 1974. This licence was periodically renewed from time to time. On account of the policy of prohibition, the issue of licences was stopped. When this policy was changed, the 5th respondent had again applied for the grant of a licence. Its application was rejected more than once. Every time, the High Court had intervened to set aside the order. While deciding CWP No. 9016 of 2000, it was held by a Bench of this Court (G.S. Singhvi and Nirmal Singh, JJ.) that the orders passed by the Prohibition, Excise and Taxation Commissioner as also the Financial Commissioner were legally unsustainable. On the second occasion, while deciding CWP No. 2382 of 2001 vide order dated March 13, 2001, it was observed by the same Bench as under:- "The decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar, declining No Objection Certificate and the adverse comments made by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Headquarter-cum-Collector appear to be manipulated because no cogent reason has been assigned by respondent No. 2 for reminding that case to the committee for fresh report. To us, it appears that favourable recommendations made by the committee consisting of the City Magistrate etc. was not to the liking of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, without giving any notice to the petitioner, he called for a fresh report and succeeded in getting adverse report/comments to create ground for rejecting the petitioners application. All this lends credibility to the petitioners allegation that the impugned order has been passed due to extraneous considerations". (Emphasis supplied). Thus, the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 5 was allowed. All this lends credibility to the petitioners allegation that the impugned order has been passed due to extraneous considerations". (Emphasis supplied). Thus, the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 5 was allowed. The impugned order was held to have been dictated by extraneous considerations. The findings are self-eloquent. 14. After the passing of the above order and in pursuance to the directions issued by the High Court, the matter was considered by the Commissioner and the Secretary to Government of Haryana. It has been found that the fifth respondent was entitled to the grant of the required licence. 15. A fact, which deserves mention, is that the findings of the Financial Commissioner are not solely based on the recommendation of the Committee or a report from a subordinate officer. Nor did the authority accept the mere ipse dixit of respondent No. 5. In fact, the officer had made "a surprise visit to Hissar on 21.6.2001 reaching directly the premises of Lido Restaurant at around 5 PM without informing anyone" about "his visit". He had inspected "the premises of the Restaurant including kitchen..." He had found that "the tables were neatly laid, covered with clean table cloth and crockery, cutlery, napkin etc. were duly in place. The kitchen was equipped will all cooking equipment both electrical and gas based and had a dishwasher also. Separate toilets for ladies and gents were present and were clean. Generator was available for full back up. The restaurant and the reception area are were centrally air- conditioned." What more can the petitioners ask for ? 16. Mr. Sibal submitted that the restaurant had neither the clientele nor the continental cuisine. These are necessary for a good restaurant. 17-18. We think the petitioners are looking for eggs in a cuckoo clock. We are dealing with Lido in Hissar. Not in Paris. As for the clientele etc., the authority has considered the matter. He observed as under :- 1. "The restaurant and its kitchen are fully equipped and are being maintained in a position where they can receive customers at any moment. It is also true that the restaurant is not getting many customers. In my opinion for the restaurant being functional it is not necessary that it should be doing thriving business. He observed as under :- 1. "The restaurant and its kitchen are fully equipped and are being maintained in a position where they can receive customers at any moment. It is also true that the restaurant is not getting many customers. In my opinion for the restaurant being functional it is not necessary that it should be doing thriving business. If it is fully equipped, is being kept neat and clean, air-conditioning is working, the kitchen is operational and the waiters are available on the spot then the restaurant has to be called functional irrespective of the number of customers received. 2. The guidelines of the Hotel and Restaurant Approval and Classification Committee of the Tourism Department, Government of India do not contain any requirement of parking space. However, in modern times when most of the persons in cities who go to restaurants prefer to go in their own cars, it is necessary that some parking space should be available. Initially, the Committee headed by the City Magistrate had given the opinion that there is no parking space in front of the restaurant and had referred to the certificate from M/s Hisser Fuelling Service Station. This certificate was not very clear whether the proposed parking space is on the land of the Petrol Pump or adjacent to it. There was no plan also showing the parking space. Therefore, I had obtained the plan and had visited the spot. It appears that the proposed parking space can meet the requirements of a restaurant and bar provided it is leveled and clean". 19. It may be that the restaurant does not have a thriving business. It is also possible that the clientele in Hissar does not come up to the perception of the petitioners. Yet, a senor officer of the State Government has found that the facilities are good. The restaurant is centrally air-conditioned. The kitchen is well equipped. The restaurant has the desired facilities. On a personal inspection, the competent authority has found that the restaurant conforms to the required standards. Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings are not well founded. Thus, there appears to be no reason to differ with the view taken by the competent authority. 20. Mr. Sibal emphasized that the 5th respondent had not produced any evidence to show that it had even reasonable sales. Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings are not well founded. Thus, there appears to be no reason to differ with the view taken by the competent authority. 20. Mr. Sibal emphasized that the 5th respondent had not produced any evidence to show that it had even reasonable sales. He pointed out that no income tax or sales tax record had been produced to prove that the restaurant was really functioning. The respondent had produced bills of June 2001. On the other hand, Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for the 5th respondent pointed out that after the introduction of the Prohibition Policy, the number of customers had considerable gone down. 21. On a consideration of the matter, it appears that on account of the policy of prohibition, which was followed in the State of Haryana for sometime prior to the year 1999, the number of customers must have been considerably reduced. However, the number of customers is not one of the pre-conditions postulated in Para 41. In any event, It is not disputed that the committee constituted by the Government of India has found that the 5th respondent was having the required facilities. It had recommended its case to the Government of India. On the basis thereof, a certificate dated June 14, 1999 was issued in favour of the 5th respondent for a period of three years. Thus, it is clear that even an independent agency constituted by the Department of Tourism, Government of India had found the 5th respondent as suitable for approval by the Government of India. The findings of the competent authority as recorded in the impugned order are duly corroborated by the certificate issued by the Government of India. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we answer the question as posed above in favour of the 5th respondent and against the petitioners. It is hold that the competent authority had not erred in passing the impugned order. It had not violated the prescribed parameters. 22. Mr. Aggarwal contended that the petitioners have no locus standi. He submitted that M/s S.L. and Company is a wine contractor. It had filed the petition to keep out a competitor. Still further, learned counsel contended that the petitioners in the second case had also been put up by the petitioner in the first case. Thus, the petitioners have no locus standi. 23. He submitted that M/s S.L. and Company is a wine contractor. It had filed the petition to keep out a competitor. Still further, learned counsel contended that the petitioners in the second case had also been put up by the petitioner in the first case. Thus, the petitioners have no locus standi. 23. Whatever may be the motive of the petitioner in the two cases, the grant of the licence to respondent No. 5 does not violate any law or rule. The action is not arbitrary or unfair. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the order, which may warrant the intervention of this Court. Thus, the issue of locus really pales into insignificance. No other point was raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in these petitions. Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.