ORDER 1. On 14th June, 2007, the State Government came up with a new excise policy and, accordingly, framed appropriate Rules. In order to settle grant of licences for running liquor shops, a Notification was published and thereby applications were invited. The Notification made it clear that the shops would be allotted in six different categorized areas, namely, in the areas situate within Patna Nagar Nigam, other Nagar Nigams, Nagar Parishads, Nagar Panchayats, Prakhand Mukhyalaya, and village areas. The applicants were free to choose their area of operation. The settlement was to be made on the basis of lottery and not on the basis of bids. 2. Petitioner applied for grant of a licence to have his area of operation at Block Headquarters Bagha 1. In the lottery, he came out first and, accordingly, became entitled to a licence to open a retail country/spiced country liquor shop in the area under Block Headquarters Bagha 1. After discharging his financial obligations in relation to the said licence, the petitioner submitted a proposal to establish his shop at Khata No. 224 and Khesra Nos. 408 & 409 said to be situate within the area of Block Headquarters Bagha 1. Accordingly, a licence was issued in favour of the petitioner to operate a retail country/spiced country liquor shop at and from the place mentioned above. This licence was issued on 1st July, 2007. 3. Soon thereafter by a letter dated 10th July, 2007 petitioner was informed by the Superintendent of Excise that the place wherefrom he has been licensed to operate his shop is situate within Bagha Nagar Nigam and, accordingly, either he should pay appropriate licence fee for operating a shop within the area of a Nagar Nigam or he should shift his shop to a place situate within the area of Block Headquarters Bagha 1. Petitioner felt that the shop, wherefrom he had been licensed to operate, is situate within Block Headquarters Bagha 1 and it was incorrect and improper to contend that the same is situate within Bagha Nagar Nigam. He accordingly preferred an appeal which was heard on 30th July, 2007, 29th August, 2007, 13th September, 2007 and 24th September, 2007 but, according to the petitioner, the hearing of the appeal was not concluded. He accordingly preferred an appeal which was heard on 30th July, 2007, 29th August, 2007, 13th September, 2007 and 24th September, 2007 but, according to the petitioner, the hearing of the appeal was not concluded. While the said appeal was pending, petitioner approached the Collector and informed him that he has chosen a site at Bairoganj which, according to the petitioner, is situate within Block Headquarters Bagha 1 and proposed to shift his licensed shop there. This proposal was accepted by the Collector on 23rd October, 2007 and, accordingly, on 29th October, 2007 the licence of the petitioner was altered by permitting him to operate his shop at and from the site shown by him at Bairoganj. 4. Soon thereafter on 27th November, 2007, by the impugned order, the petitioner was told that the Collector has cancelled the approval of the site at Bairoganj and, accordingly, the petitioner was directed to select once again a new site and to submit the same for approval. This order dated 27th November, 2007 is the reason form filing of the present writ petition. 5. On the writ petition this Court granted an interim stay on 13.12.2007. 6. Thereupon one Sri Nand Kishore Prasad filed an Intervention Application. In the intervention Application it was contended that he is the licensee entitled to operate in and around Bairoganj and that Bairoganj is situate outside Bagha 1 Block Headquarters area. He also contended that the petitioner's shop at Bairoganj is interfering with his licensed business. 7. The fact that the Collector on 23rd October, 2007 approved the site of shop of the petitioner at Bairoganj has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Similarly, the fact that the licence of the petitioner was altered on 29th October, 2007 entailing a permission in favour of the petitioner to operate from the approved site at Bairoganj has also not been denied in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, however, it has been stated that the said site is situate outside Bagha 1 Block Headquarters. Similarly, the fact that the licence of the petitioner was altered on 29th October, 2007 entailing a permission in favour of the petitioner to operate from the approved site at Bairoganj has also not been denied in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, however, it has been stated that the said site is situate outside Bagha 1 Block Headquarters. From the Intervention Application as well as from the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the Intervenor it appears that no sooner the petitioner started operating from the site at Bairoganj the Intervenor made a complain to the Collector and the Collector upon hearing only the Intervenor determined that the site at Bairoganj wherefrom the petitioner was permitted to operate is outside Bagha 1 Block Headquarters. The Intervenor has relied upon the order-sheets or the file notes of the Collector, which, however, do not depict that the Collector had ever thought that the petitioner should be noticed. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has not been whispered as to why and how on 23rd October, 2007, the Collector, knowing fully well that the petitioner has been licensed to operate within Bagha 1 Block Headquarters, was permitted to operate from the subject site at Bairoganj. 9. The manner in which the matter has been dealt with, the end product of which is the letter dated 27th November, 2007 is not in consonance with law. 10. The first contention of the petitioner that his original site, as was originally mentioned in the licence, is within the area of his licensed operation zone has not yet been decided, though an appeal has been entertained, by keeping the same pending. The contention of the intervenor that the altered site at Bairoganj, where the petitioner has been permitted to operate, is outside Bagha 1 Block Headquarters has been decided at the instance of the Intervenor by the Collector without even bothering to give a notice to the petitioner. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27th November, 2007 is quashed. 12. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27th November, 2007 is quashed. 12. It goes without saying that in the event the petitioner is operating from a site outside his licensed area of operation due to any mistake on the part of the Collector in proceeding to hold that the same was within his area of operation, such mistake can be rectified, but while rectifying the same, steps as are required to be taken in law should be taken.