1. In the facts and circumstance of the case. I propose to dispose of this writ petition at the preliminary stage of admission itself. 2. I have heard Mr. W.S. Nargal, learned Advocate, for the petitioners, as well as Mr. M.A. Goni, learned Advocate General with Mr. M.S. Bhat, GA, for the respondents, in extenso. 3. In pursuance of an Auction Notice published in Daily Excelsior on 23rd February, 2002 to put the country liquor vends in Jammu and Kashmir Divisions to public auction for the year 2002-2003, petitioners secured detailed terms and conditions from the office of respondent No. 3 on payment of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioners also participated in the auction proceedings on 11-03-2002 for Doda-Udhampur Excise Range and on 13-03-2002 for Rajouri-Poonch Range to obtain licence for retail sale of country liquor. It is further contended that the petitioners being the higher bidder, were declared as successful bidder at the time of hammer by the Auction Committee. By way of security, the petitioners deposited 10% of the bid money on the fall of the hammer and further deposited an amount of 5% within the period provided. It is also contended that respondents were under legal obligation to have issued licence for the retail sale of country liquor in favour of the petitioners, but instead of issuing licence for retail sale of country liquor for Udhampur-Doda Excise Range and Rajouri-Poonch Range, they rejected the bid of the petitioners vide communication No. 1-02/Exc. dated: 01-04-2002 without justification and jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the Government has no power to prove or disapprove the bid when the highest bid is accepted by the Presiding Officer of the Auction Committee. That the communication impugned is couched with malafide consideration and issued with the purposive intent to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate right and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and prayed for the following relief: - i) Writ of mandamus: declaring the communication dated; 01-04-2002 vide No: 1-02/Exc. as illegal and the same be set-aside. FURTHER ii) Writ of mandamus: directing the respondents to issue the licence in favour of the petitioners for the retail sale of country liquor for Doda-Udhampur Excise Range and Rajouri-Poonch Range for the year 2002-2003, as the petitioners have fulfilled all the formalities as laid down in the terms and conditions governing the auction for the grant of said licence" 4. Mr. Mr. M.A. Goni, learned Advocate General, in controverting the contention of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were the successful bidder being the higher bidder on the fall of the hammer before the Auction Committee constituted for the auction of the country liquor vends for the year 2002-2003 vide Government Order No: 31-F of 2002 dated: 19th February. He, however, submitted that the acceptance of the bid by the Auction Committee was subject to the approval of the Government, which reserves the right to approve or reject the bid accepted by the Committee. Government Order No: 31-F of 2002 dated: 19th February, 2002 is reproduced as hereunder: Subject: Constitution of Committees for auction of Country Liquor Vends for the year 2002-2003. Government Order No: 31-F of 2002 Dated: 19-02-2002 Sanction is accorded to the constitution of following Committees for determination of Ex-Distillery Issue price of Country Liquor and the auction of country liquor vends for the year 2002-2003. A. Committee for determination of Ex-distillery Issue Price of country liquor. 1. Commissioner Excise Chairman 2. Addl. Secretary (Finance) Member 3. Director Funds Organisation Member 4. Dy. Commr. Excise Distilleries Member 5. Senior Chemist Excise Department Member B. Committee for auction of Country Liquor Vends. 1. Dy. Excise Commissioner (Executive) Jammu. 2. Dy. Excise Commissioner (Executive) Kashmir. 3. Dy. Excise Commissioner (Revenue) of the concerned district. The Committee charged with the responsibility of determination of ex-distillery Issue price shall make its recommendations to the Government within ten days of the issue of this order and the price so determined and the Still Head Duty payable shall be announced at the time of auction. The auction of the vends shall be conducted by the Committee at the district head quarters as per locations identified in the advertisement and the committee shall conduct the auction under the overall supervision of the committee comprising the following:- 1. Commissioner Excise, 2. Director Funds Organisation. 3. Addl. Secretary (Finance). The bids shall be accepted by the auction committee subject to the approval of the Govt. which reserves the right to approve or reject the bid accepted by the committee. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- (J.A. Khan) Financial Commissioner, Finance Department. 5. Commissioner Excise, 2. Director Funds Organisation. 3. Addl. Secretary (Finance). The bids shall be accepted by the auction committee subject to the approval of the Govt. which reserves the right to approve or reject the bid accepted by the committee. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- (J.A. Khan) Financial Commissioner, Finance Department. 5. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that while according approval to the highest bid accepted by the Committee, the Government has to take care, besides other things, the interest of IMLF trade which contributes a major chunk to the State revenue and commercial viability and reasonability. According to the learned Advocate General, there is no fundamental right to trade in intoxicants, like liquor, and the grant of licence is only a concession or a privilege. In other words, the grant of a licence to trade in liquor is a privilege and not a right and that too subject to governmental control. His further submission is that no bidder can claim issuance of a licence to do business or trade, in liquor as a matter of right. This concession can at any time be withdrawn by the State. 6. It is pertinent to point out that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a beverage. Activities which were res extra commercium cannot be carried on by any citizen. The State can prohibit completely trade or business in liquor since trade or business in liquor as a beverage is res extra commercium. The State may also create monopoly in itself for trade or business in such liquor. It may further be pointed out that the State can further place restrictions and limitations on such trade or business in res commercium. The State is therefore, not precluded from regulating the trade and business in liquor. This matter also came up for consideration before the Apex Court in case M/S Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 2001 SC 1447, and it was also held as under:- "...... There is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. The State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants- its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 2001 SC 1447, and it was also held as under:- "...... There is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. The State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants- its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation to various forms of activities in relation of intoxicants. In American Jurisprudence, Volume 30 it is Stated that while engaging in liquor traffic is not inherently unlawful, nevertheless it is a privilege and not a right subject to governmental control [page 538]. This power of control is an incident of the society™s right to self protection and it rests upon the right of the State to care for the health, morals and welfare of the people. Liquor traffic is a source of pauperism and crime." 7. In this case, the bid has not yet been accepted. The acceptance was subject to the approval of the Government, which alone reserves the right to approve or reject the bid. Therefore, no cause or any legal enforceable right has accrued to the petitioners by the rejection of the bid. That apart, no fundamental right of the petitioners, much less right under Article 14 of the Constitution, has been violated. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and is accordingly dismissed in limine, with all connected CMPs.