JUDGMENT By the Court.—An advertisement was issued by the District Excise Officer, Etah and the licensing authority ie., District Magistrate Etah jointly on 16th March 2010. It was published in the newspapers including Dainik Jagran, Agra dated 19th March 2010. The aforesaid advertisement invited applications for a newly created model shop of retail vend of liquor at a place “Sudhakar Pachauri Dwar Se Katra Chowki Jalaser” for the year 2010-11. According to the advertisement the license fee for the said shop for the above period was notified as 12,54,000/-, Rs. 1,25,400/- as security and Rs. 100,000/- as ‘pratibhuti’ amount. The applications in prescribed form were to be submitted with the process fee of Rs. 5,000/-. The application forms were notified for sale between 23.5.2010 to 22.3.2010 till 2.00 p.m., and the last date for deposit was 22.3.2010 till 5 p.m. In the case of receipt of more than one application, the lottery was to be drawn on 25.3.2010 at 11 a.m. at the collectorate. 2. The above advertisement annexure 1 to the writ petition has been assailed in the instant writ petition with a further prayer to command the respondents to re-advertise the above model shop on the allegation that the location of the shop was incorrectly described in the advertisement; the petitioner was interested in applying but was not issued the application form; the application of the respondent No. 5 alone was entertained and thus granting license to him illegally. 3. As the Court was prima-facie satisfied that the advertisement contained the wrong description of the place, it directed the Standing counsel to obtain instructions or to file counter-affidavit. Pursuant thereof, counter-affidavits have been filed, both on behalf of the State as well as by private respondent No. 5. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 it has been accepted that the location of the model shop as contained in the advertisement is incorrect. The correct location of the model shop is “Sudhakar Pachauri Dwar, Katra Chowki, Jalesar”. In the advertisement the word “Se” between ‘Sudhakar Pachauri Dwar’ and ‘Katra Chowki’ has been incorrectly inserted and further that the correct place is ‘Katra Chowki’ and not Katra Ckowk as mentioned in the advertisement. It further states that the petitioner never appeared for obtaining any application form. He never deposited the process fee of Rs. 5,000/- which was payable before obtaining application form. It further states that the petitioner never appeared for obtaining any application form. He never deposited the process fee of Rs. 5,000/- which was payable before obtaining application form. Since there was only one application of respondent No. 5, license has rightly been granted in his favour. The petitioner is not qualified and eligible for applying for allotment of the model shop. The petitioner has made false averments in the writ petition. The shop in dispute has already been settled in favour of respondent No. 5 vide order of the licensing authority ie., the District Magistrate, Etah dated 25th March 2010. The petition as such is mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed. 5. Respondent No. 5 in his counter-affidavit states that the location of the model shop as advertised is correct. The area is well known and the shop can easily be identified. The shop has been settled in his favour as per law and he has completed the necessary formalities. The petitioner is not qualified and eligible for allotment of the model shop. He is not involved in liquor business and as such the petition is not maintainable. 6. In the common rejoinder affidavit filed in response to both the counter-affidavits, the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments of the writ petition, has further stated that the sanction creating the model shop was given by the Commissioner on 7.3.2010 which was received by the authorities concerned on 9.3.2010 but the advertisement was published deliberately late on 19.3.2010 to enable respondent No. 5 in the meantime to arrange for a shop at the location. Once the shop was arranged by him on 18.3.2010, the advertisement was issued on 19.3.2010. The settlement of the shop in favour of respondent No. 5 is totally manipulative and due to wrong description of the location of the shop in the advertisement the prospective bidders were kept at bay and the petitioner was also not permitted to apply. Thus, creating monopoly of respondent No. 5. 7. We have heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Kesherwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and the Excise Department and Sri V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.M. Asgar,learned counsel for respondent No. 5. The original record which has been produced before us pursuant to the order dated 15.4.2010 has also been perused. 8. The original record which has been produced before us pursuant to the order dated 15.4.2010 has also been perused. 8. The pleadings of the parties make it sufficiently clear that the location of the shop in the advertisement was wrongly described. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have accepted the same in the counter-affidavit. In fact the new model shop was created at Sudhakar Pachauri Dwar, Katra Chowki, Jalesar and not on the strech of road between Sudhakar Pachauri Dwar and Katra Chowk. Actually, there is no place Katra Ckowk in Jalesar. The place, if any, is Katra Ckowki. 9. The record produced before us demonstrates that only one application for the aforesaid model shop was received and that was of respondent No. 5, meaning thereby that no other person applied for the said shop. This was probably on account of deception due to the incorrect description of the location of the model shop in the advertisement. 10. The petitioner in paragraph 9 of the writ petition has stated that he had gone to the office the District Excise Officer for obtaining the application form but he was not provided with the same. He has further averred in paragraph 14 of the affidavit that everything was manipulated to create monopoly in favour of respondent No. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the counter-affidavit have denied the same and have stated that the petitioner never approached any authority for obtaining the application form. On these conflicting factual version on record it is not only difficult but next to impossible to precisely find the truth. Nonetheless the possibility of denying application form to the petitioner in order to promote the interest of respondent No. 5 cannot be ruled out specially, in view of the fact that only one application was received which is highly improbable looking to the competitive nature of the business. 11. The document of respondent No. 5 himself dated 27.3.2010 enclosed as annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit which is a letter addressed to the District Excise Officer, Etah indicates that respondent No. 5 deposited the license fee on 27.3.2010 vide two Bank Drafts dated 12.3.2010 and 11.3.2010 and partly vide Chalan dated 27.3.2010. It is admitted on record that the shop was settled in favour of respondent No. 5 by the licensing authority ie. It is admitted on record that the shop was settled in favour of respondent No. 5 by the licensing authority ie. District Magistrate, Etah vide order dated 25th March 2010 and he was required to deposit the complete license fee etc. within 3 working days thereafter. The very fact that the drafts of the part of the license fee were got prepared by respondent No. 5 prior to the settlement of the license in his favour sufficiently demonstrates that everything was preplanned and he knew in advance that the settlement was going to be made in his favour only. 12. A perusal of the settlement order dated 25th March 2010 further reveals that the settlement in favour of respondent No. 5 was made on the basis of lottery. The relevant portion of the said order of settlement dated 25th March 2010 is quoted below : "mRrj izns’k vkcdkjh ekMy 'kki dh QqVdj fcØh ds vuqKkiuksa dk O;oLFkkiu fu;ekoyh 2003 ¼v|ru la’kksf/kr½ ds izkfo/kkuksa ds varxZr vkidk p;u ekMy 'kki dh nqdku&tyslj ¼lq/kkdj ipkSjh }kjk ls dVjk pkSd½ gsrq ftldh izkfLFkfr uxj ikfydk gS ykVjh }kjk fnukad 25-3-2010 dks fd;k x;k gSA** 13. The record reveals as stated earlier that there was only one application i.e., of respondent No. 5 and as such there was no occasion for drawing any lottery. This also casts a shadow of doubt on the entire proceedings. 14. Thus the Cumulative effect of the above facts and circumstances leads us to believe that the settlement of the shop in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1 is manipulative. The advertisement was faulty and deceptive; only respondent No. 5 was permitted to apply and probably the petitioner was denied right to participate; the drafts for the payment of the license fee were prepared by respondent No. 5 prior to the settlement of the shop in his favour; and the settlement was through draw of lots though there was no occasion for lottery as there was only one application. 15. The question whether the petitioner is eligible for applying is not relevant at this stage as he has been denied right of being considered for the purposes of license. On consideration, it is altogether different, if his application is rejected either on merits or on account of any technicality. 16. 15. The question whether the petitioner is eligible for applying is not relevant at this stage as he has been denied right of being considered for the purposes of license. On consideration, it is altogether different, if his application is rejected either on merits or on account of any technicality. 16. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the settlement made in favour of respondent No. 5 of the shop in dispute was not fair and transparent and as such cannot sustain under law. We, therefore allow the writ petition and direct the authorities to re-advertise the model shop in question and to settle the same in accordance with the law again within a period of six weeks. 17. We would like to add, before parting, that It would be a sorry state of affairs if genuine persons who are interested in applying for license are not permitted to apply and are denied application forms as has been contended by the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that sufficient safeguard in this regard has to be provided so that the authorities may not be in a position to misuse their power and oust the candidature of genuine persons in this manner so as to favour any particular candidate. We hope the Excise Department/Secretary and the Commissioner would take immediate proper and corrective measures in this connection. ————