ORDER : 1. In these two writ petitions, question involved is same. The question agitated by the petitioners is whether a person who is holding the licence to sell the foreign liquor can be compelled to obtain and sell the beer from the same shop particularly when petitioners' have not obtained the shops in question in a ‘Samuha’ (group). 2. The petitioners submit that the decision was taken to give the shop and foreign liquor and country liquor in the group for the year 2001-2002 by the State of Madhya Pradesh, department of excise, for which, notification was published in the gazette dated 8-3-2001 containing the condition of auction. Condition No. 9 was important, in which it was made mandatory for each of the foreign liquor shop to obtain licence of sale of beer also on payment of additional Rs. 1 lac. It was also mentioned that it shall be incumbent upon every successful bidder of Samuha to obtain such a licence, hence, the petitioners submit that when the auction could not take place in ‘Samuha’ the shops in question were put to auction in the first week of May, thus, the condition which was made applicable to the successful bidder of a group of shops cannot be applied in the case of shops which were put to auction individually in the month of May, 2001. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was asked to deposit the licence fee of Rs. 1 lac to sell beer from the shop in question as per the letter dated 14-9-2001 - Annexure-P/2. The licence was issued only to sell foreign liquor except the beer, licence has been placed on record Annexure-P/3. The demand to pay licence fees for sale of beer was also raised in the month of May 2001, which the petitioner was not required to pay. Petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not selling the beer from the shop in question, as such cannot be compelled to pay the amount of Rs. 1 lac and to sell beer from the foreign liquor shops. It is further contended that the total sale was stopped from last Friday i.e. from March 15th, 2002. 3. Petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not selling the beer from the shop in question, as such cannot be compelled to pay the amount of Rs. 1 lac and to sell beer from the foreign liquor shops. It is further contended that the total sale was stopped from last Friday i.e. from March 15th, 2002. 3. The respondents in their return contend that since the shop could be sold in a ‘Samuha’ the same very condition which was mentioned in the notification dated 8-3-2001 were made applicable to the auction, which was held of individual shops in that particular district in the month of May 2001. Thus, no help can be derived from the condition from the use of word ‘Samuha’ since the emphasis in the main policy itself makes it necessary for a shop of foreign liquor to sell the beer also and to obtain the licence for beer on making the payment of Rs. 1 lac in each shop. It is submitted that the shops could not be sold in group, therefore, the State Government was constrained to make certain changes. Advertisement was issued Annexure-R/3, in which, it was made clear that conditions which are mentioned in the notification dated 8-3-2001 Annexure-P/1 applies. Thus, it is necessary even an individual shop holder has to make the payment of Rs. 1 lac as per condition of auction for foreign liquor and to sell beer. Reliance is placed on Para 10.2 of Annexure-R/4 according to the respondents which makes it clear that it is compulsory for successful auction purchaser of foreign liquor shop to obtain licence for sale of beer by depositing licence fee of Rs. 1 lac for each of his foreign liquor shops. 4. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the shop in question was not purchased in a group, as such condition in question is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. Since it is not in dispute that the shops in question were sold on individual basis and could not be sold in a group. The decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court by Hon’ble Mr. Since it is not in dispute that the shops in question were sold on individual basis and could not be sold in a group. The decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra in W.P. No. 3325/2001, M/s Aashi Enterprises and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others decided on 23-1-2002 [ 2002 (4) MPLJ 246 ] has been pressed into service, in which the question came up for consideration of right of selling the foreign liquor from a shop having licence to sell country liquor. The term ‘Samuha’ came for interpretation and it was held that ‘Samuha’ has not been used in common parlance, but special meaning has been given to this word under the policy issued by the Excise Department. Paragraphs No. 12 and 18 are pressed into service, which are quoted below: “12. On a perusal of the said clause it becomes quite vivid that the concept of “Samuha' or group is quite different. The term ‘Samuha’ is given a distinct concept in the said clause. Certain clarifications have been added to the same. In clause 2.3 it has been provided that the foreign liquor barring beer can be sold from the country liquor shops and country liquor can be sold from the foreign liquor shops but the same is applicable to the group shops. Rule 2.4 (a) also stipulates about the country and foreign liquor shops and deals with the reserved price of the group shops. In this contest I amy profitably refer to clause 21 which occurs in Annexure P-4. The same reads as under: “Aagami varsha dinank 1-4-2001 se deshi madira se videshi madira (beer ko chhodkar) ke vikraya ki anumati rehegi. Deshi madira dukan se videshi madira ki vikrya hetu videshi madira angyaptidhari uske swayam ke samuh ki kishi bhi namankit videsh madira dukan se la sakega. Isi Tarah videsh madira dukano se deshi madira ka vikraya kiya ja sakega. Videshi madira dukan se deshi madira ke vikrya hetu deshi madira anugyaptidhari uske swayam ke samuh ki kisi bhi namankit deshi madira dukan se la sakega. Nayi Aabkari niti ke antargat beer ko videshi madira se alag karte huwe beer vikraya licence aik nishchit licence fees par diya jayege.” “18. Videshi madira dukan se deshi madira ke vikrya hetu deshi madira anugyaptidhari uske swayam ke samuh ki kisi bhi namankit deshi madira dukan se la sakega. Nayi Aabkari niti ke antargat beer ko videshi madira se alag karte huwe beer vikraya licence aik nishchit licence fees par diya jayege.” “18. If these conditions are read harmoniously it becomes quite perceptible that the petitioner has no authority to bring country liquor from the foreign liquor shops and sell the same from there. It is so because he has not obtained the licence in group auction. He might have the licences in respect of more than one shop but more than one does not mean a licence for a group. Word “Samuha” stands in a different footing and an artificial distinction made by the department. The meaning of the word can not be taken at the common parlance as a different meaning is given to it in the sale notice and in the other documents.” 5. Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, learned counsel appearing for the Government submits that decision rendered in M/s Aashi Enterprises (supra) is of no avail in instant case. Action is proper. Same terms and conditions were made applicable to the individual auction held in the month of 2001 as per Annexure-R/3. Learned counsel further submits that even in the group licence for sale of beer was required to be obtained by each and every shop of foreign liquor the liability was not on a group, thus, in the case of individual auction such conditions cannot be said to be imposed for the first time. It is to be culled out from the first notification dated 8-3-2001 itself. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in my opinion there is absolutely no merit in the writ petitions as it was made clear in the initial notification that it shall be necessary for holder of each foreign liquor shops licences to sell the beer and to obtain licence on making the payment of Rs. 1 lac, thus, the liability though was mentioned to be on a successful bidder of a ‘group’ who may be successful use of term ‘successful bidder’ of a ‘group’ cannot mean and prescribe that this liability shall not be on the individual shop. 1 lac, thus, the liability though was mentioned to be on a successful bidder of a ‘group’ who may be successful use of term ‘successful bidder’ of a ‘group’ cannot mean and prescribe that this liability shall not be on the individual shop. It can be culled out clearly from the policy that each and every shop holding of foreign liquor was liable to obtain such a licence for selling beer and it was made clear in the auction notification Annexure-R/3 which was issued that same conditions are to be applied which are mentioned in the notification dated 8-3-2001 to the auction which was held of the individual shop which could not be sold in a group, thus, by necessary implication word 'Samuha' and bidder of a group has to be read in the context as successful bidder of individual shop for auction held in the month of May, 2001. Aashi Enterprises (supra) also emphasizes that the word ‘Samuha’ is not to be understood at the common parlance, but, has to be understood in the context in which it was made applicable by the department of excise. Once it was made condition of auction of foreign liquor shop it mandated compliance, it cannot be said to be unreasonable condition. It is open to the respondents to determine condition of auction. No one claim right to trade in liquor. It can be circumscribed with conditions. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion in my opinion there is no illegality in the demand raised. Petitioner ought to have obtained a licence in the month of May itself as per condition of auction. He was informed to make deposit of Rs. 1 lac and to obtain the licence to sell the beer in May 2001 which he did not deposit, thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be having any right to do the business in contravention of terms and conditions of auction. Thus, the adjustment of Rs. 1 lac out of the security amount is absolutely proper. In case the petitioner want to run the shop he has to comply with conditions and to obtain the licence for sale of beer also. It is open to the petitioners to take their own decision. In case the petitioners do not comply with the conditions the respondents are free to take action in accordance with law. 8. In case the petitioner want to run the shop he has to comply with conditions and to obtain the licence for sale of beer also. It is open to the petitioners to take their own decision. In case the petitioners do not comply with the conditions the respondents are free to take action in accordance with law. 8. I find no merit in the writ petitions. Same are dismissed. Costs on parties.