ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 3. APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT IS ALLOWED. 4. THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT DATED 6-8-2002. 5. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE: ON 28-3-2002 AN AUCTION WAS HELD IN RESPECT OF A LARGE NUMBER OF LIQUORVENDING SHOPS IN THE DISTRICT OF KISHANGANJ. AT THE AUCTION, THE APPELLANTS BECAME THE HIGHEST BIDDER IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SHOPS. IT MUST BE MENTIONED THAT RESPONDENT 7 HAD BID FOR SOME SHOPS. BUT HIS BID IN RESPECT OF THOSE SHOPS HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. RESPONDENT 7 THEREAFTER FILED A REVISION BEFORE F THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE. THAT REVISION CAME TO BE DISPOSED OF BY AN ORDER DATED 27-5-2002. THE COMMISSIONER, BY HIS ORDER, DIRECTED "THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TO FIX A TIME-FRAME FOR DEPOSIT OF 6 MONTHS LICENCE FEE AT THE ENHANCED PRICE OFFERED ALONG WITH AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 15 DAYS OF LICENCE FEE FOR EACH SHOP". ON SUCH DEPOSIT NOT BEING MADE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAS DIRECTED TO EXERCISE HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 43 AND WITHDRAW THE LICENCE 9 ALREADY GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAS DIRECTED TO HOLD A FRESH AUCTION BY INVITING FRESH BIDS. 6. IT APPEARS THAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THEREAFTER PASSED AN ORDER DATED 5-6-2002. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE TO WITHDRAW THE LICENCE. IT WAS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD BE A BAD PRECEDENT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DIRECTED THAT THE PRESENT LICENCES GRANTED TO THE APPELLANTS WERE TO BE RETAINED. RESPONDENT 7, THEREFORE, FILED A WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT HAS DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. STRICTURES HAVE BEEN PASSED AGAINST THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR FOR NOT HAVING OBEYED THE ORDER OF A HIGHER OFFICER VIZ. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE. THE HIGH COURT HAS THEN RECORDED THAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR HAD ON 3-8-2002 WITHDRAWN HIS ORDER DATED 5-6-2002. THE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO RECORDED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BUT HAS STILL PASSED STRICTURES. THE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM THAT PLACE IMMEDIATELY. 7. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, NO APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DATED 27 -52002. THE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM THAT PLACE IMMEDIATELY. 7. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, NO APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DATED 27 -52002. NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2002 BY WHICH THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR HAS WITHDRAWN HIS ORDER DATED 5-6-2002. THEREFORE, EVEN IF WE WERE TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ORDERS DATED 27-5-2002 AND 3-8-2002 WOULD STILL STAND. 8. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE STRICTURES PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED. WE, THUS, DIRECT THAT THE STRICTURES SHALL STAND DELETED. WE ALSO SET ASIDE THE DIRECTION TO TRANSFER THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. NO FURTHER OR OTHER ORDER CAN BE PASSED BY US. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.