RAJES KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order of the State Government passed in revision dated 10. 12. 2003, by which the claim of the petitioner for the remission of licence fee during the closure period has been rejected. ( 2 ) FOR the Excise Year 2002-03 petitioner was granted licence to run the country liquor shop by the lottery system in the area Deputyganj. It is alleged that the licencing committee published a declaration of the country made liquor shop in district Bulandshahar mentioning therein security money, licence fee, place etc. Petitioner was allotted the shop at Sl. No. 5 of the list. In the said list, no specific place of shop in the area of Deputyganj was mentioned. The respondent No. 4 has directed the petitioner to furnish the location of the shop in Deputyganj area alongwith boundary and other details of the shop, in which he proposed to run the retail country liquor shop. In pursuance of the allotment, petitioner deposited the required amount in the form of security to the extent of Rs. 5,41,200/- and licence fee. The minimum guaranteed quota was fixed at 66,000 bulk liter per annum. Petitioner has also submitted the details of the shop and boundary where the shop was running in the previous excise year. It is claimed that the respondents were fully satisfied with the details furnished by the petitioner inasmuch as all the requirements were fulfilled". Certificate for the Excise Year 2002-03 was issued. Petitioner accordingly, invested several lacs of rupees for the purpose to run the shop. It is alleged that the petitioner started running the shop from 08. 04. 2003. It appears that the place where the country liquor shop was running in the earlier Excise Year was demolished by the landlord for reconstruction. Thus, the dealer applied for shifting of the shop to Lal Talab, Deputyganj. It appears that by order dated 08. 07. 2002 District Excise Officer directed the petitioner to shift the shop from Lal Talab, Deputyganj to Manjar Park in pursuance of the order dated 06. 07. 2002 passed by Collector, Bulandshahar. However, petitioner shifted the shop at B. K. D. A. Complex, deputyganj and started running his shop. District Excise Officer vide order dated 04. 08. 07. 2002 District Excise Officer directed the petitioner to shift the shop from Lal Talab, Deputyganj to Manjar Park in pursuance of the order dated 06. 07. 2002 passed by Collector, Bulandshahar. However, petitioner shifted the shop at B. K. D. A. Complex, deputyganj and started running his shop. District Excise Officer vide order dated 04. 08. 2002 again directed the petitioner to shift the shop from B. K. D. A. complex to some other place at deputyganj area. Reason for shifting of the shop was that the petitioner shop was situated near gurudwara and protest was made by the Sikh community. It appears that the petitioner could not shift the shop, thus it was sealed. Thereafter, vide order dated 31. 08. 2002 petitioner requested collector, Bulandshahar to open the seal of the shop and permit him to shift the shop from b. K. D. A. Complex, Deputyganj to Setho Wali Gali, Deputyganj, district Bulandshahar. Petitioner has submitted the boundaries of the proposed site. Collector, Bulandshahar vide notice dated 21. 09. 2002 again directed the petitioner to search another premises because there is alleged protest by the Vyapar Mandal for the aforesaid premises. It appears that when the petitioner could not shift his shop, the licence was cancelled on 11. 02. 2003. Petitioner claimed that he was forced to close the shop for 65 days, prior to the date of cancellation. Petitioner therefore, claimed for the remission of the licence fee for the period during which the petitioner shop was closed. District Magistrate vide order dated 11. 02. 2003 cancelled the licence on the ground that the petitioner could not lift 37273. 26 bulk litre liquor against minimum guaranteed quota and could not deposit the licence fee amounting to Rs. 30,64,607/- and after adjusting the amount of security deposited at Rs. 5,41,200/-, the demand of Rs. 25,23,407/- was raised. ( 3 ) PETITIONER filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Lincesing and Industrial development) UP. The appellate authority vide order dated 15. 09. 2003 rejected the appeal and confirmed the rder of the District Magistrate. Petitioner filed revision before the State government. State Government vide order dated 10/12. 2003 allowed the revision in part. Principal Secretary, State government held that the petitioner is liable for payment of licence fee only upto the period 11. 02. 2003, the date on which licence was cancelled and not for the subsequent period. Petitioner filed revision before the State government. State Government vide order dated 10/12. 2003 allowed the revision in part. Principal Secretary, State government held that the petitioner is liable for payment of licence fee only upto the period 11. 02. 2003, the date on which licence was cancelled and not for the subsequent period. State Government however, rejected the claim of the petitioner for the remission of the licence fee during the period of closure of shop for 65 days on the ground that the petitioner himself was responsible for the closure, inasmuch as the shop was not run at proper place in accordance to the law. It has been held that in accordance to the Uttar Pradesh settlement of Licences (Country Liquor) Rules, 2002, petitioner has to arrange for the shop. He further observed that in the first week of June petitioner has shifted his shop from the sanctioned premises to Lal Talab, Deputyganj without any prior information which was nearer to the country liquor shop situated at Kala Aam and in front of it, there was a temple of Lord Shiva and on the back there was a Mosque and keeping in view of the protest, petitioner has been asked to shift his shop from Lal Talab, Deputyganj. Thereafter, the petitioner opened the shop at b. K. D. A. Complex. That shop was near the Gurudwara and on account of protest by the Sikh community, District Magistrate vide order dated 03. 08. 2002 asked the petitioner to shift his shop within ten days and when the petitioner could not shift the shop and continued to run the shop at the same premises, District Excise Officer sealed the shop on 28. 08. 2002. On these grounds principal Secretary held that the petitioner himself was responsible for the closure of the shop. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Rule, Excise authorities have to provide the premises for running the country liquor shop. He submitted that since time to time petitioner has been asked to shift the shop, petitioner was forced to close the shop and could not run the shop for 65 days and therefore, petitioner is entitled for the remission of the licence fee under Section 35 (3) of Excise Act. He submitted that since time to time petitioner has been asked to shift the shop, petitioner was forced to close the shop and could not run the shop for 65 days and therefore, petitioner is entitled for the remission of the licence fee under Section 35 (3) of Excise Act. In support of his submission he relied upon the Division bench decision of this Court in the case of Hanuman Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U. P. and Ors. reported in 1983 UPTC 362. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that on the facts of the present case, petitioner is not entitled for any remission, inasmuch as the closure was on account of fault on the part of the petitioner. He submitted that the privilege to allow the petitioner to run the shop is vested with the State Government and it is the discretion of the Collector under section 59 of Excise Act to authorize the payment of compensation and he is not bound to authorize for the payment of compensation for such closure in each and every case. In support of his contention Division Bench of decision in the case of Shyam Kishore Chhotey Lal v. State of U. P. reported in 1971 ALJ, 1262 and the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2989 of 2002 Gyanendra Pal v. State of U. P. decided on 06. 01. 2003 have been referred. ( 6 ) TO adjudicate the issue, it is necessary to refer some of the provisions of the Act. Section 59 reads as follows: 59. Power to close shop for the sake of public peace.- The District Magistrate by notice in writing to the licensee may require that any shop in which any intoxicant is sold shall be closed at such time or for such period as he may think necessary for the preservation of the public peace. If a riot or unlawful assembly is apprehended or occurs in the vicinity of any such shop, a magistrate of any class or any police officer above the rank of constable who is present, may require such shop to be kept closed for such period as he may think necessary: provided that where any such riot or unlawful assembly occurs the licensee shall, in the absence of such Magistrate or Public Officer, close his shop without any other. ( 7 ) SECTION 59 only refer to closure of excise shop. ( 7 ) SECTION 59 only refer to closure of excise shop. It does not say anything regarding payment or non-payment of compensation or remission of licence fee. Paragraph 190 of the Excise Manual provides as follows: 1. Payment on account of compensation for closing shops under Section 59 of the Act or for closing country spirit shops settled under the auction system during the passage of troops includes (a) the refund of an amount originally credited to Excise and (b) 10 per cent calculate don the amount of licence fees for the period during which the shop was closed, on account of loss of profits. The latter charges only should be debited to Contract contingencies. The former will be treated as a refund and adjusted against the separate grant for refund and drawbacks. 2. Compensation may be paid by the Collector on his own authority. ( 8 ) SECTIONS 34 and 35 reads as follows: 34. Power to cancel or suspend licences etc.- (I) Subject to such restrictions as the State government may prescribe, the authority granting any licence, permit or pass under this Act may cancel or suspend it (a) If any duty or fee payable by the holder thereof be not duly paid; or (b) in the event of any breach by the holder of such licence, permit or pass or by his servants, or by any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission of any of the terms or conditions of such licence, permit or pass; or (c) If the holder thereof is convicted of any offence punishable under this Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to revenue, or of any cognizable and non-bailable offence, or of any offence punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 or under the merchandise marks Act, 1889 or of any offence punishable under Sections 482 to 489 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code; or (d) where a licence, permit or pass has been granted on the application of the grantee of an exclusive privilege under this Act, on the requisition in writing of such grantee; or (e) if the conditions of the licence or permit provide for such cancellations or suspension at will. (2) When a licence, permit or pass held by any person is cancelled under Clause (a), (b) or (c)of Sub-section (1), the authority aforesaid may cancel any other licence, permit or pass granted to such person by, or by the authority of the State Government under this Act or under. . . any other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue or under the Opium Act, 1878. (3) No compensation or refund claimable for cancellation or suspension of licence etc. , under this section. The holder shall not be entitled to any compensation for the cancellation or suspension of his licence, permit or pass under this section nor to a refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect thereof 35. Further power to cancel licences - (1) Whenever the authority granting a licence under this Act considers that such licence should be cancelled for any cause other than those specified in Section 34 it shall remit a sum equal to the amount of the fees payable in respect thereof for fifteen days and may cancel the licence either. (a) on the expiration of fifteen days notice in writing of its intention to do so, or (b) forthwith without notice. ( 9 ) PARAGRAPH 372 of the Excise Manual Volume I provides as follows: 372. Lists of licences to be disposed of shall be prepared and exhibited, both at the time of the auction and for some time before, at the Collectors1 office. No shops other than those thus specified, shall, except under very special circumstances, be auctioned. (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) PARAGRAPH 374 (11) reads as follows: (11) Each licence should ordinarily be put up to separate competition.- As a rule bids should not be taken in amounts smaller than multiples of Rs. 5 up to Rs. 100; in multiples of Rs. 10 from Rs. 100 to 300; in multiples of Rs. 25 from Rs. 300 to 500; in multiples of Rs. 50 from Rs. 500 to 1,000 and in multiples of Rs. 100 from Rs. 1,000 to 2,000. All bids above Rs. 2,000 should be in even sums of Rs. 200. Where no reason to the contrary exists, the highest bid, if adequate, should be accepted. But this provision is subject to two important considerations. 50 from Rs. 500 to 1,000 and in multiples of Rs. 100 from Rs. 1,000 to 2,000. All bids above Rs. 2,000 should be in even sums of Rs. 200. Where no reason to the contrary exists, the highest bid, if adequate, should be accepted. But this provision is subject to two important considerations. Firstly care should be taken to exclude bids obviously in excess of fair market value of the licence or farm or which are the result of speculation or rivalry. The acceptance of such bids, even if the bidders fulfill their engagements, is immediately injurious to the interests of the consumer and ultimately to the excise revenue. This precaution is particularly necessary in the case of farming contracts which are worked by means of sub-settlements made by the farmer. Secondly, it is necessary to guard against the acceptance of bids which may have the effect of constituting an overt or convert monopoly and against the acceptance as licence-holders of undesirable person or person of doubtful solvency. No person whose name appears upon the district or State defaulters list should be allowed to bid, (Emphasis supplied ). ( 11 ) SECTION 2 of the U. P. Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968 framed by the U. P. Government under Section 40 (2) (e) and (f) of the Act, which provides as follows: 2. Determination of the distribution and location of shops.-Subject to the control of the State government and of the Excise Commissioner and to the limitation expressed in these rules, the distribution and general location of retail shops shall be determined by the Collector provided that in military cantonments the Collector shall exercise this power, only with the consent of the Officer Commanding the Station. ( 12 ) THE aforesaid provisions came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanuman Prasad, Jaiswal v. state of U. P. and Ors. (Supra ). Division Bench of this Court held as follows: the above provision specifically refers to closure of shop under Section 59. Then It refers to compensation for such closure. Under this provision the licensee is compensated in two ways. (Supra ). Division Bench of this Court held as follows: the above provision specifically refers to closure of shop under Section 59. Then It refers to compensation for such closure. Under this provision the licensee is compensated in two ways. First, he gets refund of the amount originally deposited and secondly, he get 10 per cent calculated on the amount of licence fees for the period during which the shop remains closed this ten per cent represents his loss of profits. If the amount deposited is liable to he refunded, there is no question of the licensee being required to deposit the amount of which he would claim refund Therefore even if the case is covered by Section 59, remission is admissible under the order of the Collector. Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 34 (1) refer to cancellation on account of some blameworthy conduct of the licensee. Clause (do refers to cancellation at the instance of the licensee. Here also the cancellation is attributable to some action f the licensee. Where Clauses (a) to (d) are not attracted, the State Government will be entitled to cancel the licence under Section 34 only if power in that behalf had been reserved under the licence or the permit Even here, to a certain extent, the cancellation can be attributed to some conduct of the licensee and this conduct is the concession of the right in favour of the licensor. The licensee accepts the licence with this condition. It is in these circumstances that no compensation becomes payable when the licence is cancelled under Section 34, in view of the provision contained in sub-section (3 ). Under Section 35 (I) the cancellation can be done for a cause and this cause has to be other than the causes referred in Section 34. In view of the provision contained in sub-section (3), the licensee is entitled to refund of or proportionate remission in the licencee fee. But the consequence follows only when the licence is cancelled. In the present case there is no specific order of cancellation of the licence and, therefore, the State Counsel argues that section 35 is not applicable. But what is the exact import of the cancellation of licence ? A licence enables the licensee to do something which he would nto otherwise be entitled to do. In the present case there is no specific order of cancellation of the licence and, therefore, the State Counsel argues that section 35 is not applicable. But what is the exact import of the cancellation of licence ? A licence enables the licensee to do something which he would nto otherwise be entitled to do. When the licence is cancelled he is disabled to do that which he had been enabled to do by grant of licence. This consequence may be covered in two ways. First by express cancellation of the licence and secondly by creating circumstances which make it impossible for the licensee to do that which lie had been permitted to do. In our opinion Section 35 will be attracted in both the situations. In the present case there is no express cancellation of the licence. Can it be said that the opposite parties created circumstances which made it impossible for the petitioner to utilize his licence. According to the opposite parties the petitioner could shift his business to some other shop. This would be possible if it were in the discretion of the petitioner to carry on business wherever he liked It has, therefore, to be seen how the shops where business in country liquor is carried are selected. Under the above provision the Collector has to determine the location of the retail shops. It was, therefore, not possible for the petitioner to shift his business to any shop he wanted. It was for the Collector to provide him alternative shop. Far from providing him alternative shop the Collector said, no alternative shop was available. In the circumstances the States contention that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation because insipte of closure of shop the petitioner could still make use of h is licence cannot be accepted. In our opinion on the facts of the present case the closure of the petitioners shop amounts to cancellation of his licence under Section 35 of the Act and the petitioner is entitled to remission in the licence fee in view the provision contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 35. ( 13 ) IN the case of Shyam Kishore Chhotey Lal v. State of U. P. (Supra), Division Bench of this Court in para 8 at page 126 observed as follows: paragraph 190 (2) states that compensation may be paid by the Collector on his own authority. ( 13 ) IN the case of Shyam Kishore Chhotey Lal v. State of U. P. (Supra), Division Bench of this Court in para 8 at page 126 observed as follows: paragraph 190 (2) states that compensation may be paid by the Collector on his own authority. In our opinion this provision merely provides the authority which can make the payment in case where compensation becomes payable. Even if this provision is construed as implying that compensation is payable when a shop is directed to be closed under Section 59 of the Act, it does not confer an absolute right upon the licensee to claim such a compensation as a right this provision at best can be construed a meaning that in a case where a licensee has been directed to close his shop under Section 59 of the Act the Collector may authorise payment of compensation. Even on this construction it will be in the discretion of Collector to authorise payment of compensation. He is not bound to authorise payment of compensation for such closure in each and every case. . . . ( 14 ) AT this stage it is relevant to refer the. Sub-Rule (7) and 8 (d), which reads as follows; 7. Application for grant of licence. (a) Where a new licence is proposed to be granted V in an area or locality the licensing authority shall invite the applications for this purpose after giving wide publicity through daily news papers having circulation in that area. (b) A list of the retail shops of country liquor for which the Collector proposes to grant licence shall be exhibited along-with shop-wise basic licence fee, annual minimum guaranteed quantity, licence fee, security amount and the earnest money at the Collectors Office. Tehsil offices and the Officers of the District Excise Officer and the Deputy Excise Commissioner of the Charge. (c) Applications for grant of licence shall be made on the prescribed forms to be issued on payment of application and processing fee, from the offices of District Excise Officer, Deputy excise Commissioner, Joint Excise Commissioner and Excise Commissioner. (d) The last date to be fixed for the receipt of application shall not be earlier than such number of days as stipulated, in the advertisement in a newspaper. 8. Eligibility conditions for applicants. (d) The last date to be fixed for the receipt of application shall not be earlier than such number of days as stipulated, in the advertisement in a newspaper. 8. Eligibility conditions for applicants. Eligible applicants for licence of a retail country liquor shop must fulfill following conditions, namely: (a) Be a citizen of India. Or a partnership firm having not more than two partners and their partners are not partners in more than four such firms, both being citizens of India. No change in partnership shall be allowed after allotment of shop (s ). Provided that if a licence is held by an individual in the event of his death, his legal heir (s) if otherwise eligible, may continue to hold the licence for the remaining period of the licence. Provided further that if a licence is jointly held by two partners, in the event of death of : either of them, the survivor along with the legal heir (s) of deceased, if otherwise eligible, may continue to hold the licence or in case of death of both partners their legal heir (s), if otherwise eligible, may continue to hold the licence. No distinction will be made between the legal liabilities of the two partners who will be jointly and severally responsible: (b ). . . (c ). . . (d) Submit an affidavit duly verified by notary public as proof of the following namely: (i) that he possesses or has an arrangement for taking on rent a suitable premise in that locality for opening the shop in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Number and location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968 as amended from time to time. (ii) that his proposed premises of the shop have not been constructed in violation of any law or rules. (iii) that he and his family members possess good moral character and have no criminal back ground nor have been convicted of any offence punishable under United Provinces Excise act, 1910 or Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or any other cognizable and non-bailable offence. (iii) that he and his family members possess good moral character and have no criminal back ground nor have been convicted of any offence punishable under United Provinces Excise act, 1910 or Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or any other cognizable and non-bailable offence. (iv) that in case he is selected as licensee he will furnish a certificate issued by Senior superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police of the district of which he is the resident, showing that he as well as his family members possess good moral character and have no criminal background or criminal record within thirty day of grant of licence. (v) that he shall not employ any salesman or representative who has criminal background as mentioned in Clause (iii) or who suffers from any infectious or contagious diseases or is below 21 years of age or a woman. (vi) that he is not in arrear of any public dues or Government dues. (vii) That he is solvent and has the necessary funds or has made arrangements for the necessary funds, for conducting the business the details of which shall be made available to licensing authority if requited. ( 15 ) IT is also relevant to refer the terms and conditions at Sl. Nos. 7 and 8 of the licence, which is in Form C. L. 5-C, which reads as follows: 7. The licence shall not be allowed to carry on any other business on the licenced premises except sale of Country Liquor for which licence is granted. 8. The licence premises shall remain open for sale on all days from 10. 00 am to 10. 00 pm except on l4th April (Ambedkar Jayanti), 15th August (Independence Day), 2nd October (Gandhi Jayanti), 26th January (Republic Day and upto 3 more days as notified for closure by the Licensing Authority. Licensing Authority may also order closure of shop on account of law and order or General Election related activity etc. under the provisions of relevant laws. No compensation shall be given for the closure of shop on above dates/days. ( 16 ) THERE is no dispute that for the Excise Year 2002-03, the shop was to be settled in terms of provisions of U. P. Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002. under the provisions of relevant laws. No compensation shall be given for the closure of shop on above dates/days. ( 16 ) THERE is no dispute that for the Excise Year 2002-03, the shop was to be settled in terms of provisions of U. P. Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002. Rule 8 provides that eligible applicant for the licence of the retail country liquor shop must fulfill the mentioned conditions; one of the condition in Clause (8) was to submit affidavit duly verified by notary public as proof that he possess or has an arrangement for taking on rental suitable premises in that locality for opening of the shop in accordance with the provisions of uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968 as amended from time to time. It means that the shop where the licensee intended to run the country liquor shop was to be arranged by him and not by the Excise authorities. Sl. No. 8 of terms and conditions, mentioned certain dates of closure of the shop and also provided that licensing authority may also order for the closure of shop on account of law and order or general election related activity etc. under the provisions of the relevant laws and no compensation shall be given for the closure of the shop on the above dates/days. Therefore, there was a clear prohibition for giving any compensation in case if the officer concerned directed the closure of the shop. In the present case, in the affidavit, the premises disclosed, was the shop run in the Excise Year 2002-03 and the petitioner was allowed to run the shop at that place. The petitioner without any prior permission or sanction shifted his shop to Lal Talab, Deputyganj, which was nearer to another shop at Kala Aam and in front of Shiv Temple and behind the shop there was a Mosque. When the protest was made by the public, the petitioner was asked to shift the shop. Petitioner shifted the shop at B. K. D. A. Complex. When the protest was made by the public, the petitioner was asked to shift the shop. Petitioner shifted the shop at B. K. D. A. Complex. The location of that shop was such that there was a Gurudwara and on the protest by the Sikh community, petitioner was again asked to shift the shop and when the petitioner could not shift the shop within the time allowed and continued to run the shop, the same was sealed, which resulted the closure of the shop. These facts show that the petitioner could not arrange proper shop for running the country liquor shop without any hindrances and since the petitioner failed to arrange the proper shop, the closure of the shop was on account of his own fault and can not be attributed to the Excise authorities. The terms and conditions of the licence also says that no compensation shall be allowed for the closure directed by the Excise authorities. Thus on the facts of the case, refusal to allow remission of licence fee and to allow any compensation can not be said to be unjustified. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. . .