ORDER 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Raipur whereby the Deputy Excise Commissioner clarified and modified the order dated 17.7.2003 Annexure P/3 passed by the Collector (Excise) District- Durg mentioning therein that in view of the clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of the Rule- 8 of the Chhattisgarh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as `Rules 1996'), the F.L. 3 licence holders are entitled to take liquor from any of the three shops of FL-1 mentioned at Item No. 20 and 21 of the Collector's order Annexure P/3. 2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner herein is a licence holder of FL -1 at Jharandalli of Dalli Rajhara Group for the year 2003-2004 up to 31st March, 2004, whereas the Respondent No.5 is also a holder of FL-1 licence of Dodilohara shop District-Durg and Respondents No. 6 and 7 are FL-3 licence holders of Dallirajhara. As per the Excise Rules FL-1 licence holders are those licence holders in which the licence in Form F.L.1 shall be disposed of by auction/tender or under the `Fee - per-bottle-system' or a combination of both the systems or in such other manner as the State Government may from time to time, by general or special order direct. The licensee, holding a licence in Form F.L. 1, shall sell foreign liquor in sealed bottles to consumers and to F.L. 2, F.L. 3 and F.L. 5 licensees. F.L. 3 licence holders are entitled to sell foreign liquor for consumption on the licensed premises to residents of such hotels for their own use or that of their guests and other casual visitors, with meals and snacks. This licence may be granted to hotels having both lodging and boarding facilities of such scale and standard as may be determined by the State Government. Therefore, the Respondents No. 6 and 7 who are F.L. 3 licence holders are hoteliers, as per the licence condition, they are supposed to purchase the foreign liquor as per their requirement from the F.L. 1 licence holders after obtaining permit from the Officers of Excise Department Respondents No. 2 & 4. Therefore, the Respondents No. 6 and 7 who are F.L. 3 licence holders are hoteliers, as per the licence condition, they are supposed to purchase the foreign liquor as per their requirement from the F.L. 1 licence holders after obtaining permit from the Officers of Excise Department Respondents No. 2 & 4. The petitioner and Respondent No.5 who are F.L. 1 licence holders are entitled to sell foreign liquor in sealed bottles to the consumers and F.L. 3 licence holders. 3. The petitioner and Respondent No.5 got the F.L. 1 licence for the period 2003 - 2004 i.e. up to 31st March, 2004. The petitioner's shop is at Jharandalli whereas the Respondent No.5's shop is at Dallirajhara. As per the case of the petitioner the Respondents No. 2 and 4 used to issue transport permit in favour of the petitioner's shop for lifting the liquor by Respondents No. 6 and 7 for consumption and use in their hotel. As per the order Annexure P/3 the Respondents no. 2 and 4 are required to issue permit to the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to lift the foreign liquor from his shop in the first instance and in case a particular variety of liquor is not available with the petitioner then the Respondent No. 2 and 4 are required to issue a permit to the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to lift that particular liquor from Balod shop which is at serial No.2 in Annexure P/3 and further if that particular liquor is also not available at the shop situated at Balod then the Respondents No. 2 and 4 are required to issue permit to the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to lift the liquor from Dodilohara shop i.e. the shop of the Respondent No.5. It has been specifically mentioned in the order Annexure P/3 passed by the Collector and this practice was continued in the year 2002-2003 and thereafter till 12.12.2003. However, the Respondents No. 6 and 7 are interested to lift the liquor from the shop of the Respondent No.5 because the owner of the shop of Respondent No.5 is close relative of the Respondent No. 7 therefore from December, 2003 the Respondents No. 2 and 4 started issuing permit in favour of Respondent No.5 which is evident from Annexure P/5. The shop of the Respondent No.5 is situated in other group i.e. Balod and not in Dallirajhara group and as per the grouping scheme the Respondents No. 6 and 7 are required to lift the liquor from the petitioner's shop which falls in Dallirajhara group and this act of the respondents has started affecting the business of the petitioner as the petitioner is paying monthly fee to the tune of Rs. 6,34,789/-. In order to achieve their object the Respondent No. 7 filed a civil suit before the Additional District Judge, Balod seeking order that the Excise Department be directed to allow him to lift the liquor from the shop of Respondent No.5. When the Respondent No.7 could not succeed in that civil suit he made a representation to the Excise Commissioner and the Excise Commissioner without giving any opportunity of hearing and giving notice to the petitioner allowed the representation of the Respondent No.7 and modified the order passed by the Collector Annexure P/3 vide impugned order dt. 27th December, 2003. Therefore, the order impugned dt. 27.12.2003 (Annexure P/5) be quashed and the Respondents No. 2 and 4 be directed to issue permit in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure P/3. 4. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents and all the respondents have mentioned that as per clause (a) of sub- rule (6) of Rule 8 of the Rules 1996 the Respondents No. 6 and 7 are entitled to lift the foreign liquor as per their requirement from any one of the three shops i.e. the shop of the petitioner situated at Jharandalli, shop at Balod or shop at Dodilohara; that being the sprit of the above provision of clause (a) of sub- rule (6) of Rule 8, the Deputy Excise Commissioner issued the impugned order Annexure P/5 dt. 27.12.2003 and even prior to that on 13/15-5-2002 the Additional Excise Commissioner issued a similar order and the Collector was under an obligation as per clasue (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 to issue directions for issuance of permit under the order passed by the Excise Commissioner for lifting of the foreign liquor from anyone of the three shops mentioned above and the petitioner's petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed. 5. I have heard Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Dr. 5. I have heard Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 5 to 7. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner argued two folds, that as per the sprit of clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of Rules 1996 the order of the Collector Annexure P/3 is correct and it is in consonance of the sprit of the rule, whereas the order of the Deputy Excise Commissioner Annexure R-7/5 dated 27.12.2003 and the Additional Excise Commissioner dt. 13/15- 5.2002 are not in consonance with the sprit of the rule. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Excise Commissioner passed the order dt. 27.12.2003 on the representation made by the Respondent No.7 without giving any opportunity of hearing and issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner which is violative of the principles of the natural justice. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order of the Deputy Excise Commissioner dt. 27.12.2003 and 13/15-5-2002 of Additional Commissioner are in consonance with the above Rule and the order Annexure P/3 passed by the Collector is not in consonance with the sprit of the Rule. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is useful to reproduce the Relevant Rules. Clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (6) of Rule-8 which are as follows:- (6) Attachment of certain licences with the nearest F.L. 1, F.L. 1A, F.L.1AA, F.L.1AAA, F.L. 10 or F.L.10A licences - (a) F.L. 2, L.L.3, F.L.4, F.L.4A or F.L. 5 licensee shall purchase foreign liquor from such F.L. 1, F.L. 1A, L.F. 1AA or F.L. 1AAA licensee of the district as may be specified by the Collector in accordance with the general directions of the Excise Commissioner or State Government. Purchase of such brands or labels, that are not available with any F.L. 1, F.L. 1A, F.L. 1AA or F.L. 1AAA licensee of the district, from any similar licensee of any other neighbouring district of the State, may be authorized by the Excise Commissioner in special circumstances. Purchase of such brands or labels, that are not available with any F.L. 1, F.L. 1A, F.L. 1AA or F.L. 1AAA licensee of the district, from any similar licensee of any other neighbouring district of the State, may be authorized by the Excise Commissioner in special circumstances. (b) Similarly, Every F.L. 1, L.L. 1A, F.L. 1AA or F.L. 1AAA licensee shall, after paying duty and bottle fee in his district, procure his supplies of liquor from any F.L.10, F.L.10-A licensee functioning in the division in which the district is situated. In case a brand or label of foreign liquor is not available with any F.L. 10, F.L. 10A licensee of the division, or if certain special circumstances warrant so, such F.L. 1, F.L. 1A, F.L. 1AA or F.L. 1AAA licensee may be permitted by the Excise Commissioner to purchase such brand or label from any F.L. 10, F.L. 10A licensee operating in any other neighbouring division. 9. The heading of the clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 starts with the wordings `attachment of certain licences with the nearest F.L. 1,' and it has been mentioned in this Rule that the licensee shall purchase foreign liquor from such F.L.1 licensee as may be specified by the Collector of the district in accordance with the general directions of the Excise Commissioner or the State Govt. So this Rule lays down that the F.L.-3 licensee is required to lift the liquor from the nearest F.L.1 shop attached with the F.L.3 shop and the language of the Rule is in singular form not in plural form and it is not disputed that the nearest shop F.L. 1 is of the petitioner's shop which is said to be existing between the premises of the Respondents No. 6 and 7, whereas the shop of Balod and Dodilohara are situated at a distance of more than 5 to 6 k.m. and looking to the sprit of this Rule the Collector Excise while issuing the licence to the Respondents No. 6 and 7 issued the order Annexure P/3 in which the Respondent No.7 has been shown at Sr. No. 21 who is F.L. 3 licence holder and against his name three shops have been shown at No.1 Jharandalli, No.2 Balod, and No.3 Dodilohara. In this order at Sr. No. 21 who is F.L. 3 licence holder and against his name three shops have been shown at No.1 Jharandalli, No.2 Balod, and No.3 Dodilohara. In this order at Sr. No. 20 name of Respondent No.6 is shown who is also F.L. 3 licence holder and against his name also three shops are shown i.e. at No.1 Jharandalli, No.2 Balod, and No.3 Dodilohara. The petitioner's shop being nearest shop of the Respondents No. 6 and 7, the Collector issued this order that in the first instance the F.L. 3 licensee will lift the liquor from shop No.1 and in case the required liquor is not available at that shop then they will lift the liquor from the No.2 shop and in case if with him also that liquor is not available then they are entitled to lift the wine from the shop No.3 after obtaining permit from the Respondents No. 2 and 4 and this order is not only in respect of the petitioner and Respondents No. 6 and 7; this order is in respect of 32 licence holders and against each F.L. 3 and F.L. 4 licence holders three shops have been shown from where those licensee are to lift the liquor in order of serial No. 1 to 3, as mentioned above. In clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 the words has been used that `licensee shall purchase foreign liquor from such F.L. 1'; it has not been mentioned in this sub-clause that the F.L. 3 licensee is entitled to lift the liquor from anyone F.L. 1 licensee, and in second part of clause (a) it has further been made clear that in case that particular liquor is not available in that attached shop then F.L. 3 licensee can take liquor from any other F.L. 1 licensee of other district and that is what has been done by the Collector in his order Annexure P/3. In this connection if we look into clause (b) it makes more clear in which it has been specifically mentioned that `F.L. 1 licensee shall, after paying duty and bottle fee in his district, procure his supplies of liquor from any F.L. 10. F.L. 10 licensee functioning in the division in which the district is situated. In this connection if we look into clause (b) it makes more clear in which it has been specifically mentioned that `F.L. 1 licensee shall, after paying duty and bottle fee in his district, procure his supplies of liquor from any F.L. 10. F.L. 10 licensee functioning in the division in which the district is situated. ` Therefore, in clause (a) the word `such licensee' has been used which specifies that F.L. 3 licensee has to lift the liquor from the attached F.L. 1 shop whereas in clause (b) the word `any such shop in the division' has been used, which shows that from any shop of F.L. 10 the F.L. 1 licensee can lift the liquor. Therefore, the legislature with specific purpose and has deliberately used the word `such' and `any' in clause (a) and (b) that is why as per the petitioner's case in the year 2002- 2003 the practice which has been ordered in Annexure P/3 was being followed and same practice was adopted for 2003-2004 as per Annexure P/3 and even till December, 2003 from April 2003 this practice was going on but all of a sudden abruptly the Deputy Excise Commissioner on the representation of the Respondents No. 6 & 7 changed the scheme without hearing and without giving notice to the petitioner and that too ignoring a stand taken by the department before the Additional District Judge in civil Court where the Respondent No.7 had filed a civil suit challenging the order of the Collector (Excise) Annexure P/3. In the circumstances merely on the representation of the Respondent No.7 during the pendency of the civil litigation regarding same issue and that to contrary to the stand taken by the department in the written statement, learned Deputy Excise Commissioner ought to have refrain himself from passing such an order that too without giving opportunity to the petitioner and particularly when the order of the Collector (Excise) Annexure P/3 was in consonance with the existing practice and that was in consonance with the sprit of the sub-rule also. 10. 10. A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent/State before the Additional District Judge shows that the Department had taken the stand in para-9 of the written statement that the plaintiff i.e. Respondent No.7 herein, is not entitled for the relief sought that he may be allowed to lift the liquor from any of the three shops and in this written statement it has also been mentioned that Jharandalli shop is nearest shop to the Respondents No. 6 and 7 and thereafter the shop of Balod and then the shop of Dodilohara are situated, and it has come on record that the Respondent No.5 is relative of Respondent No.7 that is why he wants to lift the liquor from his shop even though it is at some distance. 11. In view of the above, the order/clarification issued by the Deputy Excise Commissioner Annexure R-7/5 dated 27th December, 2003 and the circular dt. 13/15-5-2003 issued by the Additional Commissioner (Excise) are contrary to the provisions of clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule-8. Therefore, the impugned order of the Deputy Excise Commissioner is liable to be set-aside on this ground. 12. It is an admitted position that the Deputy Excise Commissioner without giving show cause notice to the petitioner or opportunity of hearing, only on the the representation made by the Respondent No.7, issued the impugned order modifying the existing order Annexure P/3 which has resulted in affecting the business of the petitioner and as has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Mahabir Auto Stores & others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & others, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1031 that the `State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution will be applicable to those exercise of power. The exercise of powers must be governed by the rule of law and must be informed by reasons. So whatever be the activity of the public authority it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution will be applicable to those exercise of power. The exercise of powers must be governed by the rule of law and must be informed by reasons. So whatever be the activity of the public authority it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. In that case a firm was carrying on the business of sale and distribution of all types of lubricants for a period of 18 years, supply of lubricants by the Indian Oil Corporation was stopped without any notice or intimation given to the firm, the action of the Corporation was held arbitrary. 13. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Canara Bank and others Vs. Shri Debasis Das and others reported in JT 2003 (3) SC 183 has held that the adherence to the principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. The principle is that no one should be condemn unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. 14. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. 14. It is an admitted position that as per the order Annexure P/3 passed by the Collector, since April, 2003 the Respondents No. 6 and 7 were continuously lifting the liquor in the first instance from the shop of the petitioner and so was the case in the previous year also but learned Deputy Excise Commissioner abruptly on the representation made by the Respondents No. 6 and 7 changed the order Annexure P/3 without giving opportunity and notice to the petitioner and which has affected the business of the petitioner and has resulted into affecting the business of the petitioner therefore the same being violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on this ground the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. The Respondents No. 5 to 7 have raised the objection that instead of filing this petition the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority i.e. Excise Commissioner which has not been done. This plea raised by the Respondents No. 5 to 7 is without any force for the reason that in the first instance even though the order impugned dt. 27.12.2003 has been issued by the Deputy Excise Commissioner but the same has been passed on behalf of the Excise Commissioner therefore there was no reason for the petitioner to file appeal before the Excise Commissioner. Therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Excise Commissioner even otherwise it is a rule of discretion and not a rule of law and where the principle of natural justice is violated the petitioner is entitled to file writ petition directly. In the matter of Harbanslal Sahnia & another Vs. Therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Excise Commissioner even otherwise it is a rule of discretion and not a rule of law and where the principle of natural justice is violated the petitioner is entitled to file writ petition directly. In the matter of Harbanslal Sahnia & another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court may exercise it writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies; (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In the present case as has been held above, principles of natural justice has been violated, therefore the plea raised by the Respondents No. 5 to 7 is without force. 16. In the result the petition succeeds and the petition of the petitioner is allowed, order Annexure R-7/5 dt. 27.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner in supersession of order passed by the Collector (Excise) Annexure P/3 is quashed and set-aside.