JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J.— What is sought to be challenged in this Writ Petition filed by some of the non-Government organisations of Koraput, a tribal district in the State of Orissa, in general is the Excise Policy introduced by the Government for the year 2001-2002 for settlement of Out-Still liquor shops and, in particular, the Auction Sale Notice dated 29.6.2002 for granting exclusive privilege for manufacture and retail sale of Out-Still liquor in the district of Koraput, vide Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the allegations levelled by the petitioners who claim to be selfless non-profit making organisations espousing the cause of obstruction and victimisation of innocent people and who claim to have taken a vow to eradicate the manufacture and sale of illicit liquor, is that the Excise Policy of the State Government, vide Annexure-2 is contrary to the interest of the Tribal inhabitants and others of Koraput district. It is stated that the inhabitants are not accustomed to Out-Still liquor and the State Government instead of introducing prohibition as envisaged by Article 47 of the Constitution of India, are trying to grant exclusive licences for manufacture and sale of Out-Still liquor which would be detrimen¬tal to the interest of the people. 3. According to the petitioners the Auction Sale Notice Annexure-8 has been issued in spite of objections filed by and on behalf of the concerned Notified Area Council and the Grama Panchayats as well as the public in general. It is also alleged that without issuing a public notice as mandatorily required under Sec. 22 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and without properly considering the objections filed as required under Sec. 26-A of the Act, the authorities have issued the Auction Sale Notice, Annexure-8, and the same is liable to be quashed on that ground alone. 4. The Superintendent of Excise, Koraput filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 inter alia contending that the present Writ Petition, in the garb of public interest litigation is not maintainable. The decision of the Government to establish and settle Out-Still liquor shops being a policy decision, the same cannot be challenged in a public inter¬est litigation. The decision of the Government to establish and settle Out-Still liquor shops being a policy decision, the same cannot be challenged in a public inter¬est litigation. It is stated that the Government after much deliberation, in order to avoid trading of illicitly manufactured liquor which is harmful, and in order to ensure maximum utilisa¬tion of Mohua flower which is abundantly available in the tribal area and in order to ensure socio-economic upliftment of the Tribals of the district by sale of Mohua flower to the dealers of Out-Still liquor and also to ensure supply of hygienic liquor to satiate the customary habits of the Tribal people of the dis¬trict, decided to introduce the manufacture and establishment of Out-Still liquor shops in only five areas out of sixteen areas proposed. It is also submitted that the authorities have followed all the mandatory requirements before issuing the Auction Sale Notice, Annexure-8, and as such the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. A petition for intervention was filed by M/s. Laxminarayan Manmohan Lal, a partnership firm in whose favour the Out-Still liquor shops in the district of Koraput have been settled, inter alia reiterating the stand taken by the State. It is also emphatically averred by the said Intervenor that the statutory notice as required under Secs. 26-A and 22 of the Act have been issued by the authorities before conducting the Auction Sale in consonance with Annexure-8. It was also submitted that all the objections filed were duly considered by the Collector of Koraput, opposite party No. 3, in consonance with Rule 4 of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Rules, 1970 and were duly forwarded. The Excise Commissioner also considered the objections received from different quarters and submitted his recommendation to the Government and the Government, after due application of mind, decided to establish the Out-Still liquor manufacturing and retail shops in five local areas out of sixteen, and thus abso¬lutely no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the State Government calling for interference by this Court. 6. 6. For effectually adjudicating the inter se disputes, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privi¬lege) Rules, 1970 : Section 26-A of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act which was introduced by amendment, vide Orissa Act 2 of 1999, reads as follows : “26-A. Restriction on grant of licence or exclusive privilege- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter or else¬where, in this Act, in the Scheduled Areas - (a) in no case there shall be granted under this Act any licence for manufacture, possession or sale, or any exclusive privilege for manufacture or sale, of any intoxicant, except with the prior approval of the concerned Grama Panchayat accorded with the con¬currence of the Grama Sasan; and (b) no licence or exclusive privilege which is granted in contravention of Clause (a) shall have any effect for the pur¬poses of this Act. (2) For the purposes of Clause (a) and Sub-sec. (1) - (i) the authority competent to grant licence for manufacture, possession or sale, or exclusive privilege of manufacture or sale, of any intoxicant shall, before granting any such licence or exclusive privilege, refer every proposal therefor to the concerned Grama Panchayat for its decision within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such reference; and (ii) if the Grama Panchayat fails to communicate its decision within the period referred to in Clause (i), it shall be deemed that the concerned Grama Panchayat has accorded the required approval. Explanation - For the purposes of this section - (i) “Grama Panchayat” and “Grama Sasan” shall respectively mean the Grama Panchayat and Grama Sasan as defined in the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964; and (ii) “Scheduled Areas” means the Scheduled Areas as referred to in Clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 22 of the Act deals with “grant of exclusive privi¬lege of manufacture and sale of country liquor or intoxicating drugs” and stipulates that the State Government may grant to any person, on such conditions and for such period as it may think fit, the exclusive privilege of manufacturing, or supplying wholesale; or manufacturing and supplying wholesale; or of selling, wholesale or retail; or selling wholesale or retail, etc., etc., of any country liquor within any specified area; provided that public notice shall be given expressing the inten¬tion to grant such exclusive privilege and that any objection received in response to such public notice from any person resid¬ing within the area affected shall be considered before an exclu¬sive privilege is granted. Rule 3 of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Rules, 1970 stipulates that the public notice as required under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 shall be given by the Collector on behalf of the State Government in form ‘A’ appended to the said Rule and in the manner specified under Sub-rules (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the said Rule before granting any exclusive privilege mentioned in Section 22 of the Act. The sub-rules referred to in Rule 3 stipulate that the public notice contemplated under Sub-rule (3) shall contain a list of police station limits, Grama Panchayats, Municipal wards, wards of Notified Area Council or village (s), so as to indicate the local area within which the exclusive privilege is proposed to be granted. It also required that the copy of the public notice should be conspicuously affixed in the locality at which the exclusive privilege is proposed to be granted. The contents of the public notice is required to be proclaimed by beat of drums or by such other means, as may be found convenient. The Rule also required that an extract of the public notice should be sent to the Chairman of each Municipality, Chairman of N.A.C. or Chairman of each Panchayat Samiti. The contents of the public notice is required to be proclaimed by beat of drums or by such other means, as may be found convenient. The Rule also required that an extract of the public notice should be sent to the Chairman of each Municipality, Chairman of N.A.C. or Chairman of each Panchayat Samiti. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that all objections which are received within the date specified in the public notice issued under Rule 3 should be considered by the Collector and submitted to the Government through Excise Commissioner for final order alongwith a list of localities and local areas as pre¬scribed for the exercise of exclusive privilege. 7. The words “locality” and “local area” have not been defined under the Act, but in the case of Sarat Kumar Sahu v. Collector, Cuttack 73 (1992) CLT 834, this Court held as follows: “‘Locality’ and ‘local area’ are essentially relative terms distinguishing places from other places but when they are both used in the same context, ‘locality’ would implicitly mean a smaller identified place other than the ‘local area’ which would include within itself the locality and embrace more areas and would be identified as the local area in distinction from still bigger area. The concept of ‘local area’ being clarified, as seen earlier, in the Form itself as to mean the limits of the police station or the grama panchayat, etc., etc., the locality in respect of which the public notice is given in the Form is neces¬sarily to be the specified place where the exclusive privilege is to be exercised. One meaning of ‘locality’ in the Oxford English Dictionary is “the fact of being local, in the sense of belonging to a particular spot.” Thus it is clear that when public notice is issued in Form ‘A’ inviting objections, it is to specify both the local area, such as the Grama Panchayat, Municipal Wards, etc. and also specify the particular spot at which the exclusive privilege is sought to be carried on. and also specify the particular spot at which the exclusive privilege is sought to be carried on. The aim and objective of issuing a public notice under Sec. 22 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Rules, 1970 is to specify both local area and also the particular spot of the local area (locality) at which the exclu¬sive privilege of sale is proposed to be carried on so as to enable the inhabitants and others to raise their objection, if any, within a specified time. Unless the specific locality is specified in the notice inviting public objection, the said notice becomes an empty formality. The exclusive privilege can only be granted in respect of notified area and specified loca¬tion indicated in the notice. 8. A cumulative reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder leads to the following irresistible conclusions : (a) No licence or exclusive privilege can be granted in any scheduled area for manufacture, possession or sale of any intoxicant, except with the prior approval of the concerned Grama Panchayat accorded with the concurrence of the Grama Sasan, as stipulated under Sec. 26-A of the Act. (b) The authority before granting any licence for manufac¬ture, possession or sale or exclusive privilege for manufacture or sale of any intoxicant shall refer the proposal therefor to the concerned Grama Panchayat for decision within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such reference. (c) If the Grama Panchayat fails to communicate its decision alongwith the concurrence of Grama Sasan, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such reference, it shall be deemed that the concerned Grama Panchayat has accorded the required approval. (d) Before granting of exclusive privilege, for manufacture and sale, a public notice as contemplated under Sec. 22 of the Act shall be given expressing the intention to grant such exclu¬sive privilege in any particular locality of a local area. (d) Before granting of exclusive privilege, for manufacture and sale, a public notice as contemplated under Sec. 22 of the Act shall be given expressing the intention to grant such exclu¬sive privilege in any particular locality of a local area. (e) The public notice required under Sec. 22 of the Act shall be given by the Collector on behalf of the State Government in Form ‘A’ appended to the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Rules, 1970; and (f) All objections received within the date specified in the public notice issued under Sec. 22 as per Rule 3 shall be consid¬ered by the Collector and submitted to Government through Excise Commissioner for final order along with the list of localities or local areas proposed for the exercise of exclusive privilege. 9. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the State forcefully submitted that all the requirements stipulated under the Act and the Exclusive Privilege Rules have been sacrosanctly complied with by the State Government before issuing the Auction Sale Notice, Annexure-8. It is also submitted that the Government after taking into consideration the remarks of the Collector and the recommendation of the Commissioner of Excise decided to grant exclusive privilege for manufacture and retail sale of Out-Still liquor in five local areas out of sixteen local areas and the decision is just, proper, is in consonance with law, and any submission to the contrary is unfounded. 10. Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Interven¬or, also supported the stand of the State Government and strenu¬ously submitted that the decision of the State Government to grant exclusive privilege for manufacture and sale of Out-Still liquor, which is cheaper and safe, is in the interest of the public. It is also reiterated that all paraphernalia stipulated in the Act and the Rules have been duly complied with and the exclusive privilege for manufacture and sale of Out-Still liquor in respect of seven shops have been granted in favour of the Intervenor and unless the stay order granted by this Court is vacated, the Intervenor will suffer irreparable loss, for no fault of his. It is also submitted that the Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. It is also submitted that the Writ Petition as filed is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. N. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that re-introduction of the Excise Policy for sale of Out-Still liquor which was banned for a few years is not in the larger interest of the Tribal people. It is also forcefully submitted by him that the mandatory requirements of law like issuing prior notice under Sec. 22 inviting objec¬tions and disposal of the same before issuing the Auction Sale Notice, and prior permission from Grama Panchayat under Sec. 26-A of the Act have not been fulfilled, thus the action of the au¬thorities issuing Annexure-8 violates the mandatory requirements contemplated under the Act and Rules, and the same is liable to be quashed. 12. Mr. Patra, drawing our attention to the notice issued in Form ‘A’ inviting objections, vide Annexure-3, dated 9th April, 2002, vis-a-vis the Auction Sale Notice, Annexure-8, submitted that no notice was issued inviting objections in re¬spect of Boriguma Out-Still liquor shop, as will be evident from the notice Annexure-3. Thus, sanction of exclusive privilege in respect of Boriguma Out-Still liquor shop covered under Annexure-8 is illegal and liable to be quashed. He also submitted that no objections were called for from most of the places covered under Annexure-8 and even otherwise the objections filed in respect of other local areas have also not been properly considered. Thus, the entire exercise culminating in issuance of Annexure-8. Notice is vitiated for non-observance of the mandatory requirements as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. 13. To appreciate the arguments and the counter-arguments, we thought it just and proper to call upon the State to produce the File dealing with the objections said to have been invited under Secs. 22 and 26-A of the Act and the said File was produced before us. A perusal of the File reveals that the Government has taken the following decision : “In the first phase three OS shops, namely, Koraput, Kotpad and Simuliguda in the urban areas with their proposed branch shops are sanctioned. 2. Since there is no objection for Umeri main OS shop and its branch shops, the same is also sanctioned. 3. A perusal of the File reveals that the Government has taken the following decision : “In the first phase three OS shops, namely, Koraput, Kotpad and Simuliguda in the urban areas with their proposed branch shops are sanctioned. 2. Since there is no objection for Umeri main OS shop and its branch shops, the same is also sanctioned. 3. Since the objection for Boriguma OS shop has been received after the statutory objection period, and the objection received after the objection period was over, is not keeping with the provision of Section 26-A of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, the said shop is also sanctioned. 4. The reserve price be fixed as proposed at ‘A’ at p. 20/N and the minimum reserve price shall be Rs. 15,000.00. 5. Decision regarding other OS shops will be taken later on. 6. As proposed at ‘B’ at p. 21/N. Sd/- MINISTER, EXCISE.” 14. Out of the OS shops dealt with in the aforesaid order, we propose to deal with Boriguma OS shop at the first instance. The file clearly reveals that no notice as contemplated under Sec. 22 of the Act was issued so far as Boriguma OS shop was concerned. No doubt notice contemplated under Sec. 26-A inviting objections from the Grama Panchayat was issued. But then, the notice in Form ‘A’ in consonance with Section 22 of the Act expressing the intention to grant exclusive privilege for Out-Still liquor shop and inviting objections from local persons and others so far as Boriguma OS shop is concerned was not issued. The public notice issued in Form ‘A’ dated 9.4.2002, vide Annexure-3, does not contain the name of Boriguma OS shop. No other notice issued under Sec. 22 read with Rule 3 of the Exclu¬sive Privilege Rules was also produced before us. Thus, it is immaterial whether the Grama Panchayat had submitted its no-objection in response to the notice issued under Sec. 26-A of the Act or not. In view of the language of Section 22 of the Act which requires issuance of a public notice expressing the inten¬tion of the State Government to grant any exclusive privilege, we are of the opinion that in the absence of such notice, no exclu¬sive privilege for manufacture and/or retail sale can be granted. In view of the language of Section 22 of the Act which requires issuance of a public notice expressing the inten¬tion of the State Government to grant any exclusive privilege, we are of the opinion that in the absence of such notice, no exclu¬sive privilege for manufacture and/or retail sale can be granted. Thus, according to us, the Auction Sale Notice, Annexure-3, so far as it relates to Boriguma OS shop as well as its branch shops at Boriguma, Kamara, Kanagaon, Arduli, Sanaparia, Aunli, Pandar¬guda, Kebedi, Jayantagiri and Jamunda Grama Panchayat areas, is not in consonance with law and we have no hesitation to quash that portion of Annexure-8. 15. So far as opening of O.S. shops at Umeri (Item No. 1 in Annexure-8) is concerned, it appears from the file that notice as required under Sec. 26-A of the Act was duly issued to the Grama Panchayats and no objections were received. But then, the notice issued in Form ‘A’ under Sec. 22 of the Act dated 9th April, 2002 reveals that objections were called for only with regard to opening of O.S. shop and branch shops in local areas of Umeri, Debighat, Lankaput, Padmapur and Badasuku Grama Panchayats as well as at Dhepasahi and Tikirisahi which are N.A.C. areas; whereas the Auction Sale Notice, Annexure-8, reveals that auction was proposed to be held with regard to main O.S.shop at Umeri and branch shops at - (1) Nodiabado (2) Sambartota (3) Jayanagar (4) Kaliagaon (5) Kumuliput. The areas of the shops being Jeypore Municipality, Umeri, Kaliag¬aon, Kumuliput, Phampuni, Danuchinnchi, Konga, Baruniput, Ekamba, Bodjibhan Grama Panchayat. A comparison between Annexure-3, i.e. notice issued under Sec. 22 inviting objections from the local areas, and Annexure-8 the Auction Sale Notice, it appears that there was no notice under Sec. 22 expressing intention for opening of branch shops at Kaligaon and Kumuliput. In view of the specific provisions of Section 22 of the Act which clearly stipulate that prior to granting exclusive privilege in respect of any shop, objections should be called for, we have no hesitation to set aside the decision of opening of O.S.branch shops at the aforesaid two places, i.e. Kaliagaon and Kumuliput under Umeri Grama Panchayat. However, the Auction Sale in respect of other places under Umeri O.S.shop, i.e. Umeri, Nodiabado, Sambartota and Jayanagar as mentioned in Annexure-8 is upheld and we refrain ourselves from interfering with the same. However, the Auction Sale in respect of other places under Umeri O.S.shop, i.e. Umeri, Nodiabado, Sambartota and Jayanagar as mentioned in Annexure-8 is upheld and we refrain ourselves from interfering with the same. 16. Item No. 2 of the Auction Sale Notice (Annexure-8) relates to O.S.shop at Chindrigaon and its branch shops at (1) Dhepasahi and (2) Tikirasahi. So far as the area of operation of the said shops is concerned, column-4 of the Notice, Annexure-8 clearly stipulates that the exclusive privilege area shall be Koraput N.A.C., and Mohadeiput, Umeri, Debighat, Lankaput, Padma¬pur and Bodasuku Grama Panchayat. Law is well settled that in no case there shall be granted any licence for manufacture, possession or sale of liquor except with prior approval of the Grama Panchayat accorded with the concurrence of the Grama Sasan as stipulated under Sec. 26-A of the Act. Scrutiny of the File produced before us, reveals that no notice under Sec. 26-A was issued to any of the Grama Panchayats. The notice issued under Sec. 22, vide Annexure-3, however reveals that objections were invited with regard to opening of the O.S.main shop and its branch shops in the area mentioned above. 17. So far as Similiguda O.S.shop and its branch shops are concerned, vide Sl. No. 3 of Annexure-8, the report of the Col¬lector, Koraput which is at page 59/C of the Govt. File, reveals that the Grama Panchayats submitted an objection. The report of the Excise Commissioner finds place at page 65 of the File. At page 64 of the said report deals with Similiguda N.A.C. and reads as follows : “3. Similiguda N.A.C. The last date for filing objections was 27.4.2002. The Executive Officer of Sunabeda N.A.C. filed objection on 15.5.02. This objection may not be entertained. The shop may be opened with branch at Sunabeda.” The notice issued under Sec. 22 of the Act in Form ‘A’ reveals that objections were invited prior to issuance of the Auction Sale Notice in respect of O.S.main shop with branch shops at Similiguda and Sunabeda (N.A.C.). The exclusive privilege however is extended to Dudhari, Gunthaput and Rajput Grama Panchayat areas. It also reveals that the objections were duly dealt with. The exclusive privilege however is extended to Dudhari, Gunthaput and Rajput Grama Panchayat areas. It also reveals that the objections were duly dealt with. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision to grant exclusive privilege for manufacture and retail sale out Out-Still liquor in Similiguda and Sunabeda (N.A.C.) as per item No. 3 of Annexure-8 Notice, but the said privilege shall not be extended, nor any branch shop shall be allowed to function in the Grama Panchayat areas like Dudhari Grama Panchayat, Gunthaput Grama Panchayat and Rajput Grama Panchayat. We direct that there shall not be any sale in the areas of Grama Panchayats mentioned above and the shops (privilege) shall be restricted to only N.A.C. areas mentioned in item No. 3 of Annexure-8. 18. With regard to item No. 5 of the Auction Sale Notice, Annexure-8, relating to Kotpad O.S.shop, it appears from the report of the Collector, Koraput at page 57 of the file that the Chairperson of Kotpad N.A.C. intimated that the council had resolved not to open Out-Still liquor shop at Kotpad. The Commissioner of Excise in his report which is available at page 64 of the File observed as follows : “Kotpad N.A.C. The last date of filing objections was 27.4.2002, whereas the Chairperson of Kotpad N.A.C. filed objection on 18.5.2002 without any resolution of the Council. This objection need not be entertained. The shop may be opened with branch at Sunabeda.” Thus it is apparent that the objection submitted by the Chairperson of the N.A.C. was not supported by any reason, and more so the same was received beyond time. Apart from the said fact, the notice issued in From ‘A’ under Sec. 22 of the Act clearly mentions the places where there was proposal to install O.S. main shops with branches. In view of the discussions made above, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of opening O.S.shop at Kotpad (N.A.C.) which is an urban area. But then, in the absence of any notice under Sec. 26-A, no privilege can be granted for Batasana, Chandili, Sasahandi and Sadaranga Grama Panchayat areas. Thus we direct that the privilege shall only be confined to Kotpad (N.A.C.) area, and not to Grama Pan¬chayat areas of Sasahandi Grama Panchayat, Batasana Grama Pan¬chayat, Chandili Grama Panchayat at Sadaranga Grama Panchayat. 19. But then, in the absence of any notice under Sec. 26-A, no privilege can be granted for Batasana, Chandili, Sasahandi and Sadaranga Grama Panchayat areas. Thus we direct that the privilege shall only be confined to Kotpad (N.A.C.) area, and not to Grama Pan¬chayat areas of Sasahandi Grama Panchayat, Batasana Grama Pan¬chayat, Chandili Grama Panchayat at Sadaranga Grama Panchayat. 19. So far as the argument with regard to propriety or otherwise of the Excise Policy of the State for the year 2001-2002 for settlement and establishment of Excise shops, vide Annexure-2 is concerned, we feel that the same is a policy deci¬sion of the State Government involving complex economic factors. In consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of BALCO Employees’ Union (Reg.) v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350 , the Court should be slow to interfere with policy decisions of the State. The powers are limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by Acts and Rules. We are, therefore, not persuaded by the arguments advanced by Mr. Patra and refrain ourselves from interfering with the policy decision of Government in a public interest litigation. 20. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed as indicated above. P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, CJ. — I am entirely in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned Brother. My only justification for adding these few words is the argument relating to the respective roles to be assigned to Section 26-A and Sec¬tion 22 of the Act. My brother has held that the two provisions deal with two different situations and I am fully in agreement with him. 22. Part IX of the Constitution of India was inserted in the Constitution of India, by the Constitution (Seventy-third) Amendment of 1992 with effect from 24.4.1993. This was consistent with the mandate of Article 40 of the Constitution of India. This was followed by the insertion of Part IX-A by the Constitution 74th (Seventy-fourth) Amendment, 1992 with effect from 1.6.1993. Article 243 to 243-O deal with Municipalities. In the wake of incorporation of Part IX of the Constitution of India, an amend¬ment was brought to the Excise Act and Section 26-A was inserted. This was followed by the insertion of Part IX-A by the Constitution 74th (Seventy-fourth) Amendment, 1992 with effect from 1.6.1993. Article 243 to 243-O deal with Municipalities. In the wake of incorporation of Part IX of the Constitution of India, an amend¬ment was brought to the Excise Act and Section 26-A was inserted. The result was that though it was for the Government to decide as a policy whether the manufacture or sale of liquor should be introduced in any area of the State, the said discretion or power was to some extent controlled by making it necessary for the Government to have the prior approval of the concerned Grama Panchayat accorded with the concurrence of Grama Sasan, before the grant of the privilege under the Act for manufacture, possession or sale of any intoxicant. It was also specifically provided that a licence or exclusive privilege granted in contravention of the provision for prior approval of the con¬cerned Grama Panchayat would not have any effect for the purpose of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. Sub-section (2) only indicated the manner in which the prior approval of the Grama Panchayat was to be obtained. The Government was to issue a notice and if within the time specified, the Grama Panchayat did not raise any objection, it was to be deemed that the concerned Grama Panchayat had accorded the required approval. The scheme indicates that if the Grama Panchayat in response to the notice under Sec. 26-A (2) of the Act, did raise an objection or denied the approval, the privilege in so far as it related to that Grama Panchayat, could not be farmed out by the Government. 23. As per Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Rules, 1970, a public notice was to be issued in the prescribed form before granting any exclusive privilege to a person for sale of liquor. Any resident of the locality was entitled to object. Objections had to be considered in terms of Rule 4 and a decision had to be taken by the Government and only on an order thereafter by the Government that the Collector could proceed with the settlement of the privilege in the manner as specified by the State Government under Sec. 29 (2) of the Act. Objections had to be considered in terms of Rule 4 and a decision had to be taken by the Government and only on an order thereafter by the Government that the Collector could proceed with the settlement of the privilege in the manner as specified by the State Government under Sec. 29 (2) of the Act. The notice under Sec. 22 thus is distinct and different from the notice contemplated by Section 26-A of the Act which is issued only to the Panchayats whereas a notice under Sec. 22 is a public notice and objection could be filed even by individuals residing within the area to be affect¬ed. 24. Thus, it can be seen that Section 26-A and Section 22 serve two different purposes and notice under one cannot be a substitute for the other. Therefore, while introducing liquor into a Panchayat area, the Government is bound to have prior approval of the concerned Panchayat under Sec. 26-A of the Act and it is also bound to issue a notice as contemplated by Section 22 of that Act inviting objections from the public. The argument raised on behalf of the Government that two separate notices are not necessary could not therefore be accepted. With reference to the files it has been found by my brother (I also agree) that there is no notice under Sec. 22 of the Act in respect of certain areas and no approval of the Panchayat in respect of certain other areas in terms of Section 26-A of the Act. The conclusion flowing therefrom has rightly been indicated by my learned broth¬er in this judgment. I am entirely in agreement with his reason¬ing and conclusion. 25. Though revenue may be of importance to a State, it appears to me, that the State should also be conscious of public health and the social upliftment of its people. Drinking habit has created havoc in families and especially among the poorer sections of the society where due to addiction of the earning member, dependent members of the family are deprived of adequate income to meet the requirements of their family. In that context, obviously, the State has also to bear in mind the goal set by Article 47 of the Constitution of India. The younger generation attracted as they are by captivating advertisements get into the habit of imbibing alcohol. Its free availability will add to this possibility. In that context, obviously, the State has also to bear in mind the goal set by Article 47 of the Constitution of India. The younger generation attracted as they are by captivating advertisements get into the habit of imbibing alcohol. Its free availability will add to this possibility. This is not conducive to their proper unbringing. It will stand in the way of their becoming assets of our nation. Continued indulgence can and will produce an indolent nation. History is replete with such instances. That would spell the doom of progress of our nation. Even if it is felt that immediate economic considerations, which are really ephemeral, outweigh this lurking menace, while introducing sale of liquor, in Tribal areas and Panchayat areas, at least the Government should consid¬er whether it is necessary to flood the tribal or Panchayat area with all forms of liquor, Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Out-still liquor and Country spirit. The learned Advocate General argued that Mohua flower is aplenty in this State and it is the raw material for Out-still liquor and not using the available re¬source will be a waste of resources. If so, when a decision is taken to introduce liquor into Tribal and Panchayat areas, cannot the State think of confining it to licensing of Out-still liquor outlets alone ? These are aspects for the Government to ponder over even while taking a decision on introducing liquor into Tribal and Panchayat areas. Writ petition partly allowed.