Judgment Tapen Sen, J. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment/Order dated 1.8.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 2293 (W) of 2003 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants. 2. The Appellants had filed the aforementioned Writ Petition before this Court against a decision taken by the State Respondents on 3rd January, 2003 issued under Memo No. 10-Ex/O/5A-31/02 purporting to have been issued under the Seal and Signature of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of West Bengal, whereby and whereunder, in partial modification of an earlier Order dated 18.12.2002, he stated that he had been directed to state that the Government had decided not to apply Rule 8 upon the Private Respondents who were the erstwhile licensees of 500 U.P. Rum and Beer while considering the sanctioning of Foreign Liquor “Off” License to them at their existing sites. The reference to Rule 8 made therein was in relation to The West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Spirit and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity and precision as the 1993 Rules). 3. The genesis of this case lies in an Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed on 30th April, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 3195 of 2002 (State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs. Madan Mohan Ghose and Ors.). The said Order finds place at running page 41 of the Paper Book and upon a perusal thereof, it is evident that the Apex Court passed the Order on the basis of an Appeal having been preferred by the State of West Bengal against a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed on 17.8.2001. A photocopy of the aforementioned Judgment dated 17.8.2001 was produced before this Court. The facts as would appear from the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the materials on record are stated hereinafter. 4. A photocopy of the aforementioned Judgment dated 17.8.2001 was produced before this Court. The facts as would appear from the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the materials on record are stated hereinafter. 4. Till December 11, 1989 the Private Respondents herein (who were Petitioners in that Writ Petition) were carrying on business in “Ganja”, “Opium” and “Bhang” under then valid licenses granted by the State of West Bengal but after coming into force of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, a bar came to be imposed on the sale of those intoxicants w.e.f. 12.12.1989 making an exception only to the sale for medicine and scientific purposes. As a consequence, people like the Private Respondents, became unemployed on and from that day and in order to rehabilitate such people, the Government formulated a policy whereby and whereunder it decided to allow the sale of 500 U.P. Rum and Beer for “Off” premises consumption and these licenses were given to such erstwhile licensees who dealt with Ganja, Bhang and Opium including the Private Respondents herein. 5. Since they were permitted to sell only two items namely, Rum and Beer and that too, only half its strength (500), their customers were very few and they were unable to compete with other Liquor Shop license holders who had the liberty to sell variety of intoxicants such as Wine, Brandy, Whisky, Gin etc. 6. Consequently, on 30th August, 1994, they filed an Application before the appropriate authority praying that they be allowed to also sell foreign liquor other than 500 U.P. Rum and Beer at their existing sites under the provisions of the 1993 Rules. A copy of one such application filed by Bijan Kr. Patra was produced and accordingly it is ordered to be retained with the records of the case. 7. The appropriate authority did not take any steps and therefore, the Private Respondents filed separate Writ Petitions before this Court for a direction to the effect that their applications for grant of foreign liquor “Off” shop licenses be considered. Patra was produced and accordingly it is ordered to be retained with the records of the case. 7. The appropriate authority did not take any steps and therefore, the Private Respondents filed separate Writ Petitions before this Court for a direction to the effect that their applications for grant of foreign liquor “Off” shop licenses be considered. By an order dated 15.11.1994 a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the licensing Authority to consider their applications in accordance with law in the event new sites had already been selected for grant of such license and in the event they had taken a decision or had formed an opinion that all shop licenses were to be granted at the said sites, then a further direction was also given that in the event the Applications matured for consideration, then an Order should be passed in accordance with law at an early date. This Order was passed in the case of Respondent No. 15 (Bijan Kr. Patra) but on the same day, similar orders were passed on the other several similar Writ Petitions that had been filed before this Court. 8. Bijan Kr. Patra was subsequently informed by the Commissioner of Excise that there was no sanction for grant of foreign liquor “Off” shop license at that particular point of time and that the representation would be considered along with other applications provided sanction of the proposed sites was given by the State Government. Similar intimations/informations were given to the other persons including these Private Respondents but in the meantime, a new set of Rules came to be published in the Calcutta Gazette vide Notification dated 4th February, 2000 which came to be known as The West Bengal Excise (Selection of Person for Grant of License at New Sites for Retail Sale of Spirit and Certain Other Intoxicants other than Foreign Liquor on Categories of Licenses and Licenses for Denatured Spirit) Order, 2000 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity and precision as the 2000 Rules). 9. By reason of the aforementioned 2000 Rules, holders of any other excise licenses were disqualified from being considered for grant of licenses under the said Rules. Clause 5(2) of the said 2000 Rules made it clear that an Application for grant of a license shall be rejected if the Applicant holds any other excise license. 10. 9. By reason of the aforementioned 2000 Rules, holders of any other excise licenses were disqualified from being considered for grant of licenses under the said Rules. Clause 5(2) of the said 2000 Rules made it clear that an Application for grant of a license shall be rejected if the Applicant holds any other excise license. 10. The Private Respondents then gave various representations to suitably amend and/or to withdraw the said Notification but there was no response except in the case of one Kanailal Maity (Respondent No. 22 herein) who was informed by the Superintendent of Excise, Midnapore (West) on 17th July, 2000, that his application was forwarded to the Excise Commissioner. 11. It appears that the case of the Private Respondents was that the State Government, without following the Rules as laid down in Rule 9 of the 1993 Rules and also without applying the provisions of Rule 59 of the Bengal Excise Rules, approved new sites for grant of foreign liquor “Off” shop licenses and fixed the number of licenses to be granted. 12. Being aggrieved by such action, an Application was filed by the Private Respondents before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, Kolkata which was registered as R.N. No. 203 of 2000 in which the Notification dated 4th February, 2000 (i.e. the 2000 Rules) was challenged to the extent it sought to disqualify the existing holders of 500 U.P. Rum and Beer foreign Liquor “Off” shop license and also to the extent, it disqualified the Private Respondents from applying for any other category of excise license at the sanctioned new sites for grant of foreign liquor “Off” shop licenses. 13. The Tribunal took up the matter on 16th February, 2001 and passed an Interim Order to the effect that lotteries be held on different dates but the result be not published till 22nd March, 2001. 14. Being aggrieved, the State Respondents and/or the State filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as WPTT No. 180 of 2001 wherein they challenged the said Order dated 16.2.2001 of the Tribunal. According to the Private Respondents, they came to learn, upon reading the contents of the said Writ Petition, that another Writ Petition namely W.P. No. 307 of 2001 had been filed by one Dasarath Gupta and Ors. According to the Private Respondents, they came to learn, upon reading the contents of the said Writ Petition, that another Writ Petition namely W.P. No. 307 of 2001 had been filed by one Dasarath Gupta and Ors. challenging the same Notification dated 4.2.2001 and an interim order had been passed therein to the effect that lottery could be held and results could also be declared but no further steps were to be taken till the 2nd March, 2001 or till further Orders, whichever was earlier. 15. The further case of the Private Respondents was that they also came to learn that yet another Writ Petition had been filed by the West Bengal Foreign Liquor “Off” and “On” Shop Owners’ Association and others and the same was registered as W.P. No. 7224 (W) of 2000 and which had been heard on 10.1.2001 and disposed off with a direction upon the State to publish an Amendment and to extend the last date for receiving applications. An Appeal against the aforesaid Judgment/Order being MAT No. 321 of 2001 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 21.2.2001 which led to the filing of an SLP which was also dismissed on 23.4.2001. 16. On 23.3.2001, the Tribunal vacated the interim Order that it had passed on 16.2.2001 and against the said Order, the Private Respondents then filed WPTT No. 249 of 2001 and while the same was pending, their application before the Tribunal, was dismissed on 12.4.2001 granting leave to them to take steps in accordance with law. It was against the aforementioned Order dated 12.4.2001 that the Private Respondents then filed the aforementioned WPTT No. 300 of 2001 before a Division Bench of this Court which passed the Judgment and/or order dated 17.8.2001 by which the Writ Petition was allowed and the Judgment and Order of the Tribunal was set aside and the concerned Respondents were directed to consider the cases of the Private Respondents for grant of foreign Liquor “Off” Shop license at the new sites selected by the State Government along with all other eligible candidates. 17. The aforementioned Judgment dated 17.8.2001 then become a bone of contention within the precincts of the State of West Bengal and as a result thereof, they filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP NO. 17. The aforementioned Judgment dated 17.8.2001 then become a bone of contention within the precincts of the State of West Bengal and as a result thereof, they filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP NO. 16276 of 2001 (Civil Appeal No. 3195 of 2002 referred to above) and which forms the genesis of this case, as stated earlier. 18. By an Order and/or Judgment dated 30.4.2002, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made various observations while allowing the Appeal of the State of West Bengal. Those observations are absolutely crucial and are to be kept in mind before we proceed to adjudicate the dispute as highlighted before us in this Appeal. These observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, briefly put, are as follows:- a) Their Lordships noted that the Private Respondents having lost their trade because of an enactment ought to be granted a particular type of excise license on compassionate grounds. b) Their Lordships in the Supreme Court also observed that the Private Respondents were now wanting to improve their business by taking out a license which was more lucrative but because of the bar of holding more than one license, they were prevented from taking out such a new license. In the background of the aforementioned observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Appeal was allowed with a direction in the manner as quoted hereinafter. While we quote the operative portion of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we, for the sake of convenience, have highlighted, in bold fonts, the portions which appeared to us to be extremely important. The said portion reads as under:- “However, we must Note that the respondents herein having lost their trade because of an enactment which prohibited the dealings in ganja opium etc. were considered as a class by the state Government, who ought to be granted on compassionate ground, a particular type of excise licence. These respondents are now wanting to improve their business by taking out a licence which, in their opinion, is more lucrative but the bar of holding more than one licence prevents them from acquiring this new licence. Before the final hearing, we had called upon the respondents to say before this Court whether they are willing to surrender their existing licence in preference to the licence which they are now seeking. Before the final hearing, we had called upon the respondents to say before this Court whether they are willing to surrender their existing licence in preference to the licence which they are now seeking. They have stated that they are willing to surrender their existing licences for the sake of a new licence they now seek. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that these respondents have lost their earlier business. we think it appropriate that we should direct the State Government to consider the applications of these respondents for the grant of licences for the sale of foreign liquor as sought for by them, provided these respondents surrendered their existing excise licences and approach the concerned excise authorities for the grant of new licence. If this is done and if the respondents are otherwise not disqualified. We direct the State Government to consider their application on a preferential basis. If for any reason, these respondents cannot be granted the new licence sought for by them, then the appellants shall restore the surrendered licence. The above concession given to the respondents will not, in any manner, entitle them to claim any other exemption from the requirement of the Excise Act. For the reasons stated above, the order of the High Court is set aside. This appeal is allowed with directions made herein above.” (Quoted Verbatim as it appears from the Paper Book) 19. In purported compliance of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government then firstly issued an order on 18.12.2002 which has been brought on record in the Paper Book at running page 39. By reason thereof, they informed that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere, the erstwhile “Ganja” licensees (which included the Private Respondents) and who were also holding retail licenses for the retail sale of 500 U.P. Rum and Beer, may, after surrendering their existing excise licenses, apply to the Collector for grant of licenses for the retail sale of foreign liquor “Off” the Premises license and on receipt of such applications, the Collector would consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 8 of the 1993 Rules. It was further mentioned that if he was satisfied that the license prayed for in substitution of the existing license was required, he would grant the license on realisation of fees etc. It was further mentioned that if he was satisfied that the license prayed for in substitution of the existing license was required, he would grant the license on realisation of fees etc. but in case the Collector was of the opinion that the license could not be granted at the premises sought for, then he would pass a speaking order to that effect. The relevant portions of the aforementioned Order dated 18.12.2002 being paragraphs 1,2 and 3 read as follows:- “1. Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere the erstwhile 12 ganja licensees whose names and particulars are appended below and who are now also holding retail licenses for the retail sale of 500 UP Rum and Beer, may, after surrendering their existing Excise licences, apply to the collector for grant of licences for retail sale of foreign Liquor off the premises in prescribed Form appended to the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Site and Grant of Licence for retail sale of Spirit and Certain other Intoxicants) Rule, 1993, published with this Department notification No. 148-Ex dated, Kolkata the 22nd March, 1993, as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) 2. On receipt of such application, the Collector shall consider such application in accordance with provisions of the said rule-8 of the rules and if he is satisfied that the licence prayed for in substitution of the aforesaid existing licence is required in the area, he shall grant such licence to the applicant on realisation of fees payable before grant of such licence. 3. In case the Collector is of the opinion that the licence prayed for can not be granted at the premises sought for, he shall pass a speaking order in this regard and refer the matter to the Excise Commissioner who shall refer the matter to the State Government with his opinion.” (Quoted Verbatim as it appears from the Paper Book) 20. On 03rd January, 2003 the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal, Department of Excise, then modified the aforesaid Order dated 18.12.2002 by issuing a letter to the Excise Commissioner stating that he had been directed to say that the Government had decided not to apply Rule 8 of the 1993 Rules upon the Private Respondents. On 03rd January, 2003 the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal, Department of Excise, then modified the aforesaid Order dated 18.12.2002 by issuing a letter to the Excise Commissioner stating that he had been directed to say that the Government had decided not to apply Rule 8 of the 1993 Rules upon the Private Respondents. This is the bone of contention in this Writ Petition, but before we proceed to deal with the submissions of the learned Counsel, it would be apposite to quote Rule 8 of the 1993 Rules and which reads as follows:- “8. Restrictions on grant of license at certain new sites.-(1) No license for the retail sale of spirit or any other intoxicant at a new site shall be granted where the new site is situated in close proximity to an educational institution recognised by the State Government or the Central Government, or any college or institute affiliated to any University established by law, traditional place of public worship, hospital or bathing ghat for public use. (2) No license for the retail sale of spirit or any other intoxicant shall ordinarily be granted at any new site in a tribal area.” (Quoted Verbatim) 21. Mr. Ajit Kumar Panja, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants, has submitted that the Order dated 3rd January, 2003 is in violation of the order of the Supreme Court. He has further submitted that the said order defeats the earlier order dated 18th December, 2002 and the same being bereft of reasons, cannot be allowed to be explained away in the shape of Affidavits or otherwise. He relies upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . He further submits that under the 1993 Rules, the Respondent Authorities could not have bypassed the provisions of Rule 8 quoted above. 22. Mr. Ajit Kumar Panja has submitted that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made a specific observation to the effect that the Respondents would not be entitled to any exception, the State Respondents could not have frustrated those observations by conferring a benefit upon the Private Respondents by making the provisions of Rule 8 inapplicable upon them. 22. Mr. Ajit Kumar Panja has submitted that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made a specific observation to the effect that the Respondents would not be entitled to any exception, the State Respondents could not have frustrated those observations by conferring a benefit upon the Private Respondents by making the provisions of Rule 8 inapplicable upon them. He submits that by doing so, the Respondents have, in fact, created an exception for the Private Respondents contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also submits, with reference to another Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores and ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. reported in (1990)3 SCC 752 that the Order dated 3rd January, 2003 cannot be sustained because it does not give any reasons. He further stretches his arguments by submitting that if licenses are granted to the Private Respondents, the Appellants would have been aggrieved and therefore, they were necessary parties to be heard before the Government took a decision not to apply Rule 8 upon the Private Respondents. He then submitted that the Order of the Supreme Court clearly lays down and indicates that the Private Respondents will have to surrender their existing licenses and once they so surrendered their licenses, any new license that was to be granted to them, would necessarily have to be treated as a new license which could only be granted by following all the procedures laid down in the 1993 Rules including Rule 8. 23. Mr. Panja then drew our attention to an unreported Division Bench Judgment delivered on 18.12.2003 in APO No. 175 of 2001 (W.P. No. 1219 of 2000) passed in the case of Sri Abhik Kumar Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. in support of his contention that the said Division Bench, while considering the same Judgment of the Supreme Court which forms the genesis of this case, had come to the conclusion that the Private Respondents should be granted licenses only at the “new sites”. Let it be recorded that the above mentioned Judgment has been reported in 2004 (1) CHN 548 . 24. Before we proceed to deal with the other contentions of the learned Counsel which have been referred to above, we, for the sake of convenience, would like to first consider the Division Bench Judgment here at this stage itself. Let it be recorded that the above mentioned Judgment has been reported in 2004 (1) CHN 548 . 24. Before we proceed to deal with the other contentions of the learned Counsel which have been referred to above, we, for the sake of convenience, would like to first consider the Division Bench Judgment here at this stage itself. The relevant portion of the Division Bench Judgment finds place at para 12 of the 2004(1) CHN 548 which reads as follows:- “We have considered the relevant rules as discussed hereinbefore as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Ghosh (Supra). Under the Bengal Excise Act the State is empowered to regulate sale and distribution of intoxicants through out the State. Under the Bengal Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder there are two types of licences being licence at the new site and supplementary licence. Under the 1993 Rules as well as under 2003 Rules the State is empowered to grant licence at the new site as well as supplementary licence to the existing licence holders. The Apex Court did not consider the authority of the State with regard to grant of supplementary licence as that was not the point in issue before the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Ghosh (Supra). The case before the Apex Court was that the existing licence holders applied for licence at the new site which according to the Apex Court was prohibited by the government order of 2000 which has its statutory force. Hence, the Apex Court held that the Ganja licence holders were not entitled to have a licence at the new site because of the bar stipulated in the 2000 Control Order. However, considering the facts and circumstances in the said case, the Apex Court made a concession for Ganja licence holders by granting them liberty to have excise licence at the new site upon surrendering the existing licence. Such procedure has no application in the instant case. Had those Ganja licence holders applied for supplementary licence at their existing site there was no difficulty for the state to grant supplementary licence to them under Rule 15(3).” (Quoted Verbatim but emphasis by bold fonts is supplied by this Court) 25. Such procedure has no application in the instant case. Had those Ganja licence holders applied for supplementary licence at their existing site there was no difficulty for the state to grant supplementary licence to them under Rule 15(3).” (Quoted Verbatim but emphasis by bold fonts is supplied by this Court) 25. We are of the view that the aforementioned Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cannot be applied upon this case because we do not find from the Judgment of the Supreme Court, a portion of which has been quoted above, that their Lordships had ever said that the “Ganja” License holders (Private Respondents) should be given a license at the new site upon surrendering their existing license. 26. We therefore, wish to strictly read the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the manner as it appears. We are therefore of the view that the aforementioned Division Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 2004 (1) CHN 548 is of no assistance to the Appellants. 27. Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee has submitted that after the Order of the Supreme Court was delivered on 30th April, 2002, a duty was cast upon the State Government to do the needful strictly in accordance with the observations and/or directions of the said Apex Court and while doing so, if they chose not to apply Rule 8, it could not be said that the Government had acted either arbitrarily or illegally. We are of the view that Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee’s submissions are correct and our reasons for saying so are as follows:- a) There is no dispute that the Private Respondents were erstwhile “Ganja” dealing license holders under the Excise Act who went out of business after coming into force of the 1985 Act relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. b) From the materials available on record, it is evident that the private Respondents applied for new licenses at the existing sites. They never applied for licenses on a new site. c) Apart from the aforesaid, the observations of the Supreme Court quoted above, clearly indicates that their Lordships observed that since the Private Respondents had “lost” their trade, they ought to be granted, on compassionate grounds, a particular type of excise license. They never applied for licenses on a new site. c) Apart from the aforesaid, the observations of the Supreme Court quoted above, clearly indicates that their Lordships observed that since the Private Respondents had “lost” their trade, they ought to be granted, on compassionate grounds, a particular type of excise license. Thus from the very opening observations of the Supreme Court quoted above, it is evident that the Apex Court itself created an exception and were of the view that a particular type of excise license should be granted to the Private Respondents. The Supreme Court never said anywhere that these Respondents should be given a license at a “new” site. On the contrary, their Lordships very clearly indicated that if the Respondents were willing to surrender their existing licenses, then the Government would consider granting them a new license as was being sought for by them. d) The license which was being sought for by them was the “Off” shop foreign liquor of license at the “existing sites” and not at the “new” site. The Supreme Court has also recorded that it was a “concession” being given to the Private Respondents without giving them any other “exceptions”. That does not mean that we must interpret the Order of the Supreme Court in such a manner that the operative effect of the said Order is rendered meaningless. We are of the view that the observations and the Order of the Supreme Court clearly laid down that since the private Respondents had “lost” their business and trade, they were to be granted a new license as was being sought for by them and which was foreign liquor “off” license at the “existing site”. The Supreme Court also directed the State Government to consider the applications of the private Respondents on a “preferential basis”. 28. All these words, read together, clearly signifies that so far as the private Respondents are concerned, Rule 8 was not at all applicable upon them. Therefore by issuing the letter dated 3.1.2003, all that the State Government did, was to merely intimate that the Government had decided not to apply Rule 8 upon the private Respondents. 29. We are of the view that by taking such a decision, the Government did not commit an illegality because according to us, Rule 8 of the 1993 Rules had no application in view of the observations of the Supreme Court. 29. We are of the view that by taking such a decision, the Government did not commit an illegality because according to us, Rule 8 of the 1993 Rules had no application in view of the observations of the Supreme Court. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment relied upon by Mr. Panja in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case does not apply nor does the Judgment passed in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores can be said to have any application upon the facts and circumstances of this case. 31. The private Respondents lost their business and trade after 11th December 1989. Eighteen (18) years have gone by. The Supreme Court carved out an exception for the Private Respondents as early as in the year 2002. It is unfortunate that the said Order has not yet been given effect to. Under these circumstances, we do not wish to enter into the other arguments relating to provisions of the Excise Act as argued by Mr. Panja. On the contrary, we feel that enough is enough and the Order of the Supreme Court must now be given effect to. 32. Consequently, we uphold the action of the State in issuing the letter dated 3rd January, 2003 and in doing so, we also uphold the impugned Order/Judgment of the learned single Judge passed on 1.8.2003 in W.P. No. 2293 (W) of 2003 dismissing the Writ Petition of the Appellants. 33. As a consequence, we ratify the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge that once a license is granted to sell spirit, the site loses its character of a “new site” and becomes an “existing site” and continues to be so until such time as mentioned in the explanation appended to Clause 3 (ii) referred to in the 1993 Rules. We also uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge to the effect that Rule 8 has no application on an existing site. We also confirm the view taken by the Learned single Judge to the effect that when the Respondents were granted the license to sell spirit in the form of 500 U.P. Rum and Beer, the site for which such license had been granted, lost its identity of a “new” site and it became an “existing” site and therefore, Rule 8 had no application, insofar as these Private Respondents were concerned. We therefore find no merit in this Appeal. We therefore find no merit in this Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to Costs.