SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated July 25, 2003 passed by the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal, affirming an order dated December 9, 2002 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Bankura, granting licence for the retail vend of country spirit in favour of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. ( 2 ) ON January 18,2001 Government of West Bengal floated an advertisement inviting applications from companies, firms and societies formed by unemployed youths for issue of excise licences for country spirit shops at various locations including Chatramore in the district of Bankura. ( 3 ) THE petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are educated unemployed youths and they proposed to form a partnership firm in the name and style of Paul Enterprise, the petitioner No. 1. ( 4 ) ON February 18, 2001 the petitioners applied, in prescribed form, for licence for country spirit shop at Chatramore in the district of Bankura. The petitioners, along with their applications, submitted certificates from the local member of the legislative assembly, inter alia, indicating that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are educated unemployed youths. ( 5 ) ON August 14, 2001 the District Magistrate and Collector, Bankura informed the writ petitioners and the private respondents regarding their respective positions in panel for issue of excise licence for country spirit shop at chatramore prepared on the basis of lottery held by Directorate of Lottery, west Bengal. The position of the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the said panel was first while the writ petitioners were placed in third position in the panel. ( 6 ) ON receipt of certain complaints regarding improper processing of applications for issue of licences for setting up country spirit shops at certain places including the said Chatramore site, the District Magistrate and Collector, bankura directed the Executive Magistrate and Special Land Acquisition officer, Bankura to hold an enquiry regarding such complaints. ( 7 ) THE said Executive Magistrate and Special Land Acquisition Collector, bankura held enquiries and he submitted his report to the District Magistrate, bankura on January 31, 2002. ( 8 ) THE relevant portions from the said report are set out hereinbelow:"i issued notice to both Sri Rajib Chattopadhyay and Sri Subhendu chatterjee who secured first position in the lottery, for a hearing on 4. 1. ( 8 ) THE relevant portions from the said report are set out hereinbelow:"i issued notice to both Sri Rajib Chattopadhyay and Sri Subhendu chatterjee who secured first position in the lottery, for a hearing on 4. 1. 2002 at 2. 00 p. m. at the office of the B. D. O. , Joypur under Memo No. 1577 (7) / la. dated 27. 12. 2001 of the LA. Deptt. , Bankura. Both of them attended the hearing and I recorded their statements duly signed by them (original statements are attached ). Rajib Chattopadhyay has stated that he is unemployed and lives with his brother, Sanjib Chattopadhyay in a joint family. His brother, Sanjib Chattopadhyay is the owner of the 'light House' shop at Gelia More. Rajib Chattopadhyay has admitted that he sells electrical goods of the said shop. Rajib Chattopadhyay submitted a xerox copy of a challan showing deposit of profession tax of Sanjib Chattopadhyay, as a token of Sanjib shop. Rajib Chattopadhyay has admitted that there are decorators' shop and tailoring shop by the side of the proposed country spirit shop and the proposed shop is within 30/40 feet from the Bishnupur-Kotulpur metalled road. Another partner, Sri Subhendu Chatterjee has admitted that he was a businessman and dealt in potato till March, 2001. They signed the application form for grant of licence for country spirit shop on 12. 2. 2001 and mentioned in column 4 seasonal business-paddy, Til, potatoes etc. against business or sales experience, if any, Subhendu Chatterjee has further admitted that he took loan of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) for business from Chatramore co-operative Bank but he could not repay the same till 4. 1. 2002 Subhendu chatterjee has admitted that his/his partner's name for potato business has been registered with Chatramore Kshudra Babsayee Samiti. From the above, it transpires that Subhendu Chatterjee, as on the date of application, was self-employed, at least, partially and the site for the proposed country spirit shop is situated within the market place of Chatramore". ( 9 ) THE Additional District Magistrate (Excise) gave his views on the said enquiry report of the said Executive Magistrate and Special Land Acquisition officer, Bankura. ( 9 ) THE Additional District Magistrate (Excise) gave his views on the said enquiry report of the said Executive Magistrate and Special Land Acquisition officer, Bankura. The relevant extracts from the views of the said Additional district Magistrate, Bankura are set out hereinbelow :"the complaint against Shri Rajib Chattopadhyay and his partner Shri subhendu Chatterjee 1st place holder in the lottery for country spirit shop at chatramore is not substantially established. The object of complaint that rajib Chattopadhyay is employed/self-employed, has a shop in the name and style of'light House' is already mentioned in the application form. Shri chattopadhyay did not suppress anything in this regard. Moreover, the owner of the shop is his elder brother and he lives together. The document showing that his elder brother is the owner of the shop, has been shown. Similarly, Shri Subhendu Chatterjee also mentioned in the application form that he is self-employed with small business on paddy/rice/til/tisi etc. which are only seasonal business in nature. He has taken loan from a co-operative society as said by him. I think, this is not any point for rejecting them because all these points of objection were mentioned in the application form and these are not matters for discarding their candidature for the business in country spirit". ( 10 ) THE writ petitioners, being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, inaction on the part of the respondents in not issuing the licences for country spirit shop at Chatramore, Bankura in favour of the writ petitioners, moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court, which was registered as W. P. No. 17182 (W) of 2002. ( 11 ) ON December 9, 2002 the District Magistrate and Collector, Bankura issued the impugned licence for the retail vend of country spirit in favour of the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8. ( 12 ) AGAINST the said order of the District Magistrate and Collector, Bankura, granting of licence in favour of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal. 7 and 8. ( 12 ) AGAINST the said order of the District Magistrate and Collector, Bankura, granting of licence in favour of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal. ( 13 ) BY order dated March 28, 2003 Prabir Kumar Samanta, J. disposed of the said writ application by directing the said appellate authority to dispose of the said appeal filed by the writ petitioners expeditiously and peremptorily within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the said order after giving reasonable opportunities of hearing both to the writ petitioners and the private respondents, in whose favour licence was granted. ( 14 ) BY impugned order dated July 25,2003, the Excise Commissioner, West bengal dismissed the appeal with the following observations:"going through the records, it is seen that one of the partners of the firm placed at S1. No. 1, lives in a joint family and sells goods from his brother's shop. Another partner is a seasonal businessman of paddy, til, potato and etc. It is quite evident that a person of or above the age of 21 years must have a minimum subsistence level of income. Therefore self-employment can be termed as employment only of a person earns more than the subsistence level. In the present case this does not appear to be so as the engagements are only secondary and seasonal in nature. " ( 15 ) BEING aggrieved the writ petitioners have come up with this writ application. ( 16 ) MR. Bidyut Kiran Mukhopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the writ petition, argues that the private respondents are not unemployed youths and as such they are not entitled to get licence for setting up country spirit shop at Chatramore as the site is reserved for unemployed youths and as it is found even by the authorities that at least one of the private respondents, namely, Shuvendu Chatterjee, is already in business. ( 17 ) MR. Debasish Kargupta, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6, supports the order passed by the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal. Mr. Kargupta draws my attention to the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of Licence at New Sites for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other intoxicants) Order, 2003, particularly to paragraph 3 of the said order of 2003. 1 to 6, supports the order passed by the Excise Commissioner, West Bengal. Mr. Kargupta draws my attention to the West Bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of Licence at New Sites for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other intoxicants) Order, 2003, particularly to paragraph 3 of the said order of 2003. ( 18 ) IN the paragraph 3 of the said order of 2003 the right of the State government, to reserve any new local area for settlement amongst firms or societies formed by unemployed youths under the provisions of any law for the time being in force, is recognised. The Explanation appended to the said paragraph 3 explains the words "unemployed youth": "unemployed youth" shall mean any person of or above the age of twenty-one years, but not above thirty-seven years registered as unemployed in any employment exchange in the State of West Bengal and certified to be unemployed by any of the authorities mentioned in the said paragraph 3 in whose jurisdiction such person resides. The said authorities are: (a) Member of Parliament; (b) Member of Legislative Assembly; (c) Sabhadhipati of a Zilla Parishad; (d) Sabhadhipati, Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad; (e) Chairman, Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council; (f) Chief Executive Officer of a Notified Area; (g) Mayor or Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation; and (h) Chairman,of a Municipality. ( 19 ) IT is, however, further provided that it will be open to an unemployed youth, instead of furnishing certificate of unemployment from the aforesaid authorities, to submit an affidavit in lieu of such certificate from a Magistrate or a Notary Public. ( 20 ) MR. Kargupta submits that since the private respondents complied with the requirements mentioned in the said paragraph 3, they are eligible for settlement of the licence. Mr. Kargupta, further, submits that under the West bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of Licence at New Sites for Retail sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 1993, particularly in Rule 18, power is reserved to the State Government to interpret the said rules. Mr. Kargupta, therefore, submits that when the State Government has interpreted the rules in favour of the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8 accepting their eligibility, it is not open to this Court to take a different view. ( 21 ) MR. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate, appearing for the private respondent Nos. Mr. Kargupta, therefore, submits that when the State Government has interpreted the rules in favour of the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8 accepting their eligibility, it is not open to this Court to take a different view. ( 21 ) MR. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate, appearing for the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8, argues that his clients did mention in the application for grant of licence that one of the private respondents, namely, Shuvendu chatterjee was in seasonal business of potato, paddy, til, tisi etc. It is submitted by Mr. Chattopadhyay that none of the private respondents are gainfully employed, but their engagements are seasonal in nature and their income is not substantial Mr. Chattopadhyay cites the decisions in the case of Rajinder kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Ors. , reported in 1984 (4) SCC 635 ; Kamarhatty Company Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of west Bengal and Ors. , reported in 2002 (1) CLJ 310 and Taj Services Limited and industrial Tribunal and Ors. , reported in 96 Factories Journal Reports 599. ( 22 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, Chatramore site is reserved for settlement amongst firms or societies formed by unemployed youths. Therefore, unless the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are unemployed youths, they are not entitled to settlement of the country spirit licence of the said site. It has been found, as findings of fact, by the authorities concerned that at least one of the private respondents, namely, Shuvendu Chatterjee, has been in business. He is dealing with potato, paddy, til and tisi etc. He is a member of Chatramore Kshudra babsayee Samiti. It is admitted by him that he obtained loan from Chatramore co-operative Bank Limited for his business. ( 23 ) IN the said paragraph 3 of the said Order of 2003 the expression "unemployed youth" has been explained, but what is unemployment that has neither been defined in the Act or in the rules or explained in the said Order of 2003. ( 24 ) BLACK in his Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979) explains "unemployment" as "state of being not employed; lack of employment". ( 25 ) IN the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, (1993 Edition) the word "unemployment" has been explained as "the state or condition of being unemployed". ( 24 ) BLACK in his Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979) explains "unemployment" as "state of being not employed; lack of employment". ( 25 ) IN the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, (1993 Edition) the word "unemployment" has been explained as "the state or condition of being unemployed". ( 26 ) THE word "unemployed" has been explained in the said dictionary as "not made use of, usually for a particular purpose, not engaged in any occupation, idle, out of paid employment, redundant". ( 27 ) IT has been proved that Shuvendu Chatterjee is in business be it seasonal or regular. He is a member of the local Babsayee Samiti. He obtained loan from local Co-operative Bank for running his business. It is impossible for me to accept that he is an unemployed youth; he is admittedly not idle. The Excise commissioner holds that unless someone earns more than his subsistence level, he cannot be considered to be in employment. It is true that the West Bengal excise (Selection of Person for Grant of Licence at New Sites for Retail Sale of liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 1993 reserves the power of the interpretation of the rules to the State Government, but such interpretation must be rational and must not be capricious and whimsical. A person who is a regular member of a Babsayee Samiti and obtains loan from the Co-operative society for running his business cannot be termed as an unemployed youth. A person who is sitting idle is unemployed. Mr. Chattopadhyay is right that in the application the private respondents mentioned about the said business and the private respondents are, therefore, not guilty of suppression of facts. Merely, because the private respondents mentioned about the business in the application, the defect cannot be cured. The site is reserved for settlement to the unemployed youths and such settlement must be made to the unemployed youths or not at all. The manner in which such licence is to be settled is laid down in the advertisement issued by the Government. The authorities are under obligation to settle such licence in the manner prescribed in the advertisement. They are not entitled to interpret the rules in whimsical manner to show undue advantage to ineligible persons. ( 28 ) THE decisions cited by Mr. Chattopadhyay are not relevant. The authorities are under obligation to settle such licence in the manner prescribed in the advertisement. They are not entitled to interpret the rules in whimsical manner to show undue advantage to ineligible persons. ( 28 ) THE decisions cited by Mr. Chattopadhyay are not relevant. In Rajinder kumar (supra) the Supreme Court was considering a case of dismissal from service of a workman based on a perverse domestic enquiry. The Supreme Court was considering about the right of such workman to get back wages. In the said case the workman was forced to maintain his family by helping his father-in-law, who owned a coal depot. Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, observed if this was gainful employment, the employer could contend that the dismissed employee in order to keep his body and soul together had taken to begging and that would as well be a gainful employment. ( 29 ) IN Kamarhatty Company Limited (supra) a learned Judge of this Court while considering the prayer for grant of interim relief held that earning of Rs. 600/- (Rupees six hundred) only by supplying milk, as in that case, could not be considered as gainful employment. ( 30 ) THE Delhi High Court in Taj Services Limited (supra) noticed that the workman could be denied the benefits under section 17b of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 only when it was proved that the workmen were employed and were receiving adequate remunerations during the period of pendency of the writ petition. The learned Judge noticed the language of the said section 17b and, further, noted that in order to get benefits under the said section 17b the workman was required to file an affidavit to the effect that he had not been employed in any establishment. Hence, under the proviso to section 17b, what was required to be proved by the employer was that the workman had been employed in any establishment and had been receiving adequate remuneration from such employment. Being employed for remuneration in an establishment meant employment under another employer. It was different from running his own business or trade in order to remain alive to see the end of the litigation. Being employed for remuneration in an establishment meant employment under another employer. It was different from running his own business or trade in order to remain alive to see the end of the litigation. ( 31 ) I, accordingly, allow this writ application and set aside the order dated december 9, 2002 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Bankura granting licence in favour of the private respondents as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated July 25, 2003 which affirmed the said order. The licence granted in favour of the private respondents is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to the consequential steps for settling the licence for setting up the country spirit shop at Chatramore strictly in accordance with law. Such steps must be completed within one month from the date of communication of this order to the Collector and District Magistrate, Bankura. ( 32 ) IN view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the application, filed by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for vacating the ad interim order passed in this writ petition, becomes infructuous. The said application is, also, disposed of as infructuous. ( 33 ) I make no order as to costs. ( 34 ) XEROX plain copies of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant registrar (Court) are to be given to the parties on their usual undertakings. Writ application allowed.