ORDER This writ petition has been filed by A. Radha Krishna Murthy seeking a mandamus declaring the action of Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur 3rd respondent in issuing Notification No. 41 dated 27-5-2010 for auction to grant lease of right to sell Indian made foreign liquor by shop under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, (for short, 'the Rules, 2005') in so far as not specifying the location for establishing A-4 shops bearing Gazette serial Nos. 217 to 219 (retail outlet) with respect to Chilakaluripet Municipality Guntur District is concerned as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair and violative of Rule 5 of the Rules. 2. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is: The petitioner participated in the tender for A-4 shop (retail outlet) bearing Gazette serial No. 217 i.e., Krishnamachal Centre area for the lease year 2008-2010 and he became the 2nd highest bidder for the said shop. The 3rd respondent issued notification dated 27-5-2010 calling for tenders for grant of lease for the lease period from 1-7-2010 to 30-6-2012 in respect of various shops in Guntur District. The last date for receipt of tenders in sealed cover was 5-6-2010. The auction was scheduled to be conducted at 10 a.m. on 7-6-2010. In respect of Chilakaluripet, tenders have been called for three shops and particulars were specified as shop Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The upset price fixed for the three shops was as follows: Shop No. Location since Location as per Upset price as 2005 till date impugned per impugned notification notification 217 Ward No.5, Shop No.1, 71,,1,149 Krishnamahal Chilakaluripet Centre Area Municipality 218 Ward No. 12, Shop No.2, 1,43,86,499 Krishnamahal Chilakaluripet Centre Area Municipality 219 Ward No.3, Shop No.3, 1,41,97,531 Krishnamahal Chilakaluripet Centre Area Municipality The area/locality was indicated in the notification as Chilakalurpet Municipality. The petitioner intended to bid in the auction of right to sell liquor in retail for the period 2010-2012 for the said three shops. Since the respondents have not specified the location of the said three shops, he filed the writ petition assailing the Gazette notification dated 27-5-2010 seeking declaration that non-specification of the areas in the Gazette notification as to where the three shops proposed to be located in Chilakaluripet Municipality is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Rule 5 of the Rules. 3. 3. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paragraphs 8 to 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder: "8. I submit that from the above it is evident that the Respondents have so specified the locations of the said 3 shops for the area/locality that there is no scope for overlapping or unhealthy competition between the highest bidders. It may also be relevant here to mention that there were no statistics or data available prior to the bidding for the exercise year 2005-06 so as to arrive at the upset prices and basing on the location of the shops the bidders participated in the auction. The said highest bid of the excise year 2005-2006 was taken as the base for arriving at upset price for the subsequent period of 2006-2008 by enhancing the same at 10% per annum. It may also relevant here to mention that the upset prices and the sales differ from shop to shop thus evidencing that the bid amount and the sales are directly linked with the exact location of the shops as notified for the said area/locality in question. 9. While matter stood thus, the 3rd Respondent published notification under Rule 5 and 11 of the said Rules vide District Gazette dated 27-5-2010 thereby notifying the auction of the shops in District of Guntur for the period commencing from 1-7-2010 t 30-6-2010 since the previous perid namely 2008-2010 was expiring on 30-6-2010. The said notification ha been issued basing on the proceeding of the 2nd Respondent issued in reference Cr.No. 3600/2010/CPE/G2 dated 15-5-2010. As per the said notification dated 27-5-2010, the last date for submitting tenders is fixed 5-6-2010 and the opening of tenders fixed for 7-6-2010. The relevant details thereof are as follows: 10. I submit that from the perusal the notification it is evident that the 3rd Respondent has not specified the location of the shops as being done sin 2005 i.e., from the date of the first fixation and location of shops by 2nd Respondent under Rule 4 and 5 the said Rules though the upset price has been fixed at 15% more than bid accepted for the previous period 2008-2010. Thus the action of Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Thus the action of Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. I submit that I have reliably learnt that for all the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in all the Dist of the State of Andhra Pradesh, ex Guntur District, the locations of shops have been notified for thee period in question, keeping in view the previous locations and the corresponding bids for the last three excise periods. In spite of my efforts and due to paucity of time, I could not procure notifications of other Districts except the notification pertaining to the District of Prakasham and the same is herewith filed for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to permit me to file the said notifications in this Writ Petition as and when I could procure them. It is also pertinent here to mention that even in so far as the District in question is concerned, out of 12 Municipalities the Respondents have specified the locations of the shops for 8 Municipalities as being done since 2005. Hence, the said action of the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India" 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 1-6-2010. An interim order came to be passed on the even date directing the respondents not to hold auction in respect of Chilakaluripet shops in pursuance of the impugned notification pending further orders. However, the respondents were not precluded from proceeding with the auction after notifying the area/locality, in which the shops are proposed to be located. Two miscellaneous petitions being W.P.M.P. Nos. 15828 and 15993 of 2010 came to be filed by Tanneru Sambasiva Rao and Gude Ravinder Kumar seeking their impleadment as party respondents. The said W.P.M.Ps. came to be ordered on 8-6-2010. 5. The respondents 1 to 3 filed W.V.M.P.No. 2101 of 2010, Respondent No.4 filed W.V.M.P.No. 2183 of 2010 and respondent No.5 filed W.V.M.P.No.2184 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order granted in W.P.M.P.No. 15410 of 2010 in W.P.No. 12219 of 2010. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed common counter affidavit. One Hiralal Samaryia has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed common counter affidavit. One Hiralal Samaryia has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that several representations were received by the concerned authorities complaining that restricting to establish the shop to a particular area is resulting in monopoly by certain individuals and as the population of Chilakaluripet is about 91,656 and that there is more potentiality if the shops are notified taking Municipality as an area and that will give scope for all intending tenderers to participate in the auction. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that if the area/locality is limited to a particular area, it is very difficult for the intending tenderers to secure a suitable premises in the event of their becoming successful tenderers. Considering all the aspects and to rectify the anomaly that crept in earlier notification and with a view to give a level playing field to all the intending tenderers and also taking into account the small number of shops i.e., (3) shops in the Municipality, the entire Chilakaluripet Municipality has been taken as one area and accordingly notification has been issued. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the words area/locality in Rules 4 and 5(2)(i) of the Shop Rules, 2005 shall be construed as area or locality and while fixing the shops and notifying the same, the authorities competent to do so will fix and notify the shops ordinarily in areas and wherever the authorities feel it necessary, they may specify the localities also. In the instant case it is felt desirable that it is sufficient to mention the area only as the number of shops to be located are only three. 7. Respondents 4 and 5 have stated in the affidavit filed in support of the respective impleadment petitions that when two different expressions are used in the Rules, they have to be given two different meanings. If area/locality have to be given the same meaning the very purpose of Rule making authority to mention two different expressions would be defeated. Rule making authority knowing fully well about circumstances and situations thought it fit to give discretion to the concerned authority to specify in the notification either area or locality. If area/locality have to be given the same meaning the very purpose of Rule making authority to mention two different expressions would be defeated. Rule making authority knowing fully well about circumstances and situations thought it fit to give discretion to the concerned authority to specify in the notification either area or locality. The Rule making authority incorporated such expressions to enable the Auctioning Authority to have the discretion to fix either areas or localities as the auctioning authority/department would be in better position to appreciate the totality of circumstances in public interest. 8. The writ petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that all the successful bidders for the three shops for the excise year 2005-2006, 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 are not residents of Chilakaluripet and they secured suitable premises and completed their lease period without any complaint. For better understanding, I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the reply affidavit, which reads as hereunder:- "It is also not correct to state that such a vague area/locality led to a situation to a restricted competition and in this connection several representation were received by the concerned authorities complaining restricting to establishing a shop to a particular area is resulting in monopoly by certain individual and there is more potentiality if the shops are notified taking the Municipality as area and that will give scope for all the intending tenders to participate in the auction and the said averments are denied and Respondents are put to strict proof of the same. It is also not correct to state that it is brought to the notice of the authorities if the area/locality is limited for the particular area, it is difficult for the tenderers to secure suitable premises in the event of they become successful in the auction. I submit that with respect to the three shops situated in Chilakaluripet Municipality various persons including non residents of Chilakaluripet Municipality have submitted tenders since 2005-2006 onwards. In fact for the excise year 2005-2006, 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 with respect of Kalamandir Centre area the successful bidders were one Mr. M. Koteswara Rao, Mr. Voleti Srinivasa Rao and Mr. Paspuleti Srinivasarao resident of Guntur respectively, have secured the suitable premises and they have run the shops in that area without any complaint. In fact for the excise year 2005-2006, 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 with respect of Kalamandir Centre area the successful bidders were one Mr. M. Koteswara Rao, Mr. Voleti Srinivasa Rao and Mr. Paspuleti Srinivasarao resident of Guntur respectively, have secured the suitable premises and they have run the shops in that area without any complaint. Coming to the Krishna Mahal Centre area for the excise years 2005-2006, 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 the successful bidders were one Sri D. Srinivasa Rao resident of Sattenapalli, Sri. D. Damodar Rao and B. Nagaraju resident of Guntur respectively. Whereas with respect to N.R.K. Centre area for the excise years 2005-2006, 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 the successful bidders were one Sri B. Venkateswarlu and Sri T. Sambasivarao respectively. All the above successful bidders have secured suitable premises and to my knowledge they have not made any representations with regard to specifying of locations and they have successfully did their business for the entire period of lease. These facts evident that even the non residents of Chilakaluripet Municipality have submitted tenders and have run the shops by securing suitable premises in the area/location specified by the authorities in the earlier notifications. Therefore, it cannot be said mentioning of area/locality and restricting the shops to the particular area is resulting in monopoly for certain individuals. I submit to my knowledge no representations have been made to the Respondents complaining that the restricting to establish a shop to a particular area is resulting in monopoly on certain individuals. At any rate under Rule 5 of the Rules, It is mandatory on the part of the Respondents to specify the area/location for establishing the shop. Therefore, even assuming for argument sake without conceding that there were several representations then also the Respondents have no power to deviate from the Rule 5 and the existing procedure that too only with respect to the Chilakaluripet Municipality. It is also not correct to state that if the area/localities limited to a particular area, it is very difficult to intending tenders to get suitable premises in the event of they become successful tenders in the auction. It is also not correct to state that since there are only 3 shops notified in the entire area and in view of the representations from the tenders, it is felt desirable not to continue the old, undefined and restricted locations. It is also not correct to state that since there are only 3 shops notified in the entire area and in view of the representations from the tenders, it is felt desirable not to continue the old, undefined and restricted locations. At any rate, if a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent not to specify the area/location with respect to the shops situated in Municipalities he should follow the same procedure with respect to all the Municipalities situated in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. But he cannot specify the area/location with respect to the some Municipalities. This procedure results arbitrariness to the general public. I submit even in Markapur Municipality, Parakasham District where the shops have situated, the Respondents have specified the area/location and even in Jaggaiahpet Municipality and Pedana Municipalities Krishna District there shops have situated, there also, the Respondents have specified the area/location. It is submitted that even the Respondent himself is admitting that the only change resorted to the Chilakaluripet Municipality from the previous notification is in respect of area/locality. It is also not correct to state instead of giving a restricted and undefined area giving scope for limited competition, the area is kept wide for giving level play to all intending tenders including petitioner." 9. The writ petitioner also placed on record additional material papers including the notifications pertaining to Krishna District, Nellore District, West Godavari District and Nalgonda District. 10. When the vacate stay petitions came up for consideration, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 11. Heard Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Sri A.Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the Gazette Notification dated 27-5-2010 issued by the 2nd respondent so far as it relates to Chilakaluripet Municipality, wherein three shops are proposed to be auctioned without specifying the location of each of the three shops is contrary to Section 17 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, (for short, 'the Act'). He would further submit that if more than one shop is permitted to be located in the same locality, there is every likelihood of unhealthy competition. He would further submit that if more than one shop is permitted to be located in the same locality, there is every likelihood of unhealthy competition. That in the earlier notifications locality was specified for each of the three shops in Chilakaluripet Municipality area and there was no valid reasons for the executive to depart with the earlier policy so far as Chilakaluripet alone and treating entire Chilakaluripet Municipality as one area which ultimately leads to unhealthy competition. The notification impugned in the writ petition treating the entire Chilakaluripet Municipality as one area is not in consonance with the upset price fixed for the three shops. In a way, the learned counsel would submit that the upset price has been fixed taking into consideration the turnover of the business in the respective localities of Chilakaluripet Municipality, wherein the three shops are situated. The learned counsel took me to the notification issued in respect of lease periods 2006-2008 and 2008-2010. In 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 the three shop areas have been indicated as wardwise. The area/locality of one shop is indicated as Ward No.5, Krishna Mahal centre area; the area/locality of another shop is indicated as Ward No.12 at Kalamandir Centre area and the area/locality of the 3rd ship is indicated as Ward No.3 at Narasaraopet Centre area. According to the learned counsel, upset price has been fixed keeping in view of the location of the shops in the specified wards and centres and if that is given go-by, all the three shops should have the same upset price. The very fact that three shops have different upset prices suggests that the three shops should have business operations in three different localities in Chilakaluripet Municipality. Otherwise, there is every likelihood of all the three shops being located in the same locality in which case all of them should have same upset price. The learned counsel took me to various provisions of the Act and the Rules, 2005. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed 0[', the following decisions: (1) Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration (1) (2001) 3 SCC 635 = AIR 2001 SC 1447 (2) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2) (2005) 1 SCC 625 . The learned counsel took me to various provisions of the Act and the Rules, 2005. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed 0[', the following decisions: (1) Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration (1) (2001) 3 SCC 635 = AIR 2001 SC 1447 (2) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2) (2005) 1 SCC 625 . (3) Krishna Kumar Narula v. State of J&K and others (3) AIR 1967 SC 1368 (4) State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (4) (2004) 11 SCC26 (5) Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. (5) 2005 (3) SCJ 648 = (2005) 6 SCC 138 (6) G. Venkatesh v. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Hyderabad and others (6) 2007 (3) ALT 678 (7) Arji Sankara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. (7) 2006 (1) ALT 545 (8) Kamala Wines v. Commissioner, P&E Hyderabad (8) 2005 (2) AL T 93 = 2005 (2) ALD 464 (9) K. Hanmanth Rao and another v. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Hyderabad (9) 2007 (4) AL T 711 (10) M. Peraiah v. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Hyderabad (10) 1998 (2) ALT 417 = 1998 (2) ALD 761 . 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also refers the meaning of locality and area as stated in various English dictionaries. Learned counsel by referring the meanings of the words 'area' and 'locality' in Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition), the New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1987 Edition), Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (New Seventh Edition), Wharton's Law Lexicon (1993 Edition), The Law Lexicon (Fourteenth Edition) contends that these two word\ carry different connotations, and they are not substitute to each other, and therefore area and location are required to be specified in the notification issued in the writ petition. I am of the view that the meaning of and location are required to be understood in the context in which they are used. 14. For example, if two person belonging to two different States happen to meet in some other State, they introduce themselves with reference to the State from which they hail. I am of the view that the meaning of and location are required to be understood in the context in which they are used. 14. For example, if two person belonging to two different States happen to meet in some other State, they introduce themselves with reference to the State from which they hail. If the two persons of the same State happen to meet, they may introduce themselves with reference to the region in the State and if two persons belonging to same region happen to meet, they introduce themselves with reference to the part of the region each of them hail. If two persons belonging to the same region happen to meet, they introduce themselves as to which part of the region they hail. If two persons belonging to different districts in a State happen to meet, they introduce themselves with reference to a particular district. If two persons belonging to same district happen to meet, they introduce themselves with reference to a particular taluq. If two persons belonging to same taluq happen to meet, they introduce themselves with reference to an area in the taluq. Further narrower introduction is with reference to the locality. Therefore, the words locality and area are to be understood in the context in which they are referred in the Act. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contends that the petitioner has not made a challenge to any of the Rules, 2005 and since the relevant rules empower the executive to notify the shops indicating either area or locality and since the notification impugned in the Writ Petition is in accordance with the Rules, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Additional Advocate General also contends that the notification cannot be set aside on the ground that the petitioner is incapable of making his business assessment and there is no compulsion on the part of the petitioner to respond to the tenders and he is always at liberty to walk out. 16. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the notification impugned in the Writ Petition is in accordance with the Rules and there being no challenge to the Rules by the petitioner, it is impermissible for him to contend that the Rules and the provisions of Section 17 of the Act do not go together. 16. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the notification impugned in the Writ Petition is in accordance with the Rules and there being no challenge to the Rules by the petitioner, it is impermissible for him to contend that the Rules and the provisions of Section 17 of the Act do not go together. He would further contend that the executive is at liberty to notify the area/locality and there is no ambiguity in the notification impugned in the Writ Petition as the entire Chilakaluripet has been taken as one unit, wherein three shops are to be located. The upset prices of the three shops have been indicated and it is for the petitioner to choose and submit his tender to anyone of the three shops or to all the three shops and nothing prevented him to select the shop for which upset price is lesser than the other two shops. The petitioner having failed to have his business assessment cannot be permitted to contend that the notification is not in tune with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. He would also contend that the petitioner failed to prove that the notification is arbitrary and unreasonable and in which case, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Sri A. Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, adopted the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 18. The object of issuing Gazette Notification prescribing number of shops, location, upset price etc. is to give an indication to the auction purchasers to offer highest bid after taking into consideration relevant factors. Location of the shop is required to be indicated so as to enable the auction purchasers to take into account all the relevant factors to offer their bids it is well settled by catena of decisions that tender for liquor business is not a fundamental right and it is a privilege of the State and the State parts with the said privilege for revenue consideration. It is also well settled that the Courts in exercise of their power of judicial review do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the Executive unless policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perverseness and mala fides will render the policy unconstitutional. It is also well settled that the Courts in exercise of their power of judicial review do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the Executive unless policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perverseness and mala fides will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt the business interest of the petitioner, does not justify to invalidate the policy. Manufacture and sale of liquor is exclusive privilege of the State Government. The exclusive privilege which the State parts with for revenue consideration is by way of calling for the tenders. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.'s case (4 supra), that trade in liquor is not a fundamental right. It is a privilege of the State. The State parts with this privilege for revenue consideration. 19. Section 17 of the Act reads as hereunder: 17. Grant of exclusive privilege of manufacture, etc.:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 28 and any rules made in this behalf, the Government may, subject to such conditions as they may deem fit, to impose, grant for a fixed period to any person at any place a lease or licence or both either jointly or severally for the exclusive privilege: (i) of manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale or of both; or (ii) of selling by wholesale, or by retail; or (iii) of manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale, or of both, and of selling by retail, any liquor or other intoxicant within any such area in the State as may be specified in the said order. Explanation: A lease shall not take effect until the Collector or any other competent officer has issued a licence under this Act. (2) The Government may confer on any officer the power mentioned in subsection (1 ). By referring the section, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that unless location is specified, exclusive privilege to carryon the business cannot be conferred on the successful tenderer. In a way he contended that the words 'exclusive' used in the section is referable to the area. This argument, in my opinion, is completely fallacious and ex facie unsustainable. The word 'exclusive' mentioned in Section 17 of the Act referable to privilege. In a way he contended that the words 'exclusive' used in the section is referable to the area. This argument, in my opinion, is completely fallacious and ex facie unsustainable. The word 'exclusive' mentioned in Section 17 of the Act referable to privilege. The State has exclusive privilege and the said privilege has been parted with for revenue consideration. It is not referable to a specified area. What is required to be seen is whether the Gazette Notification dated 27-5-2010 referable to shops 1 to 3 of Chilakaluripet is in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Subsection (2) of Section 17 of the Act empowers the Government to specify any area in the State. In the notification, entire Chilakaluripet has been specified as area, wherein three shops are sought to be located. 20. Rule 4 of the Rules, 2005, deals with stablishment of shops, which reads as hereunder: "4. Establishment of Shops:- The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise having due regard to requirement, public order, health, safety and other factors as he thinks fit, may fix the number of shops to be established in an area/locality before the publication of the Auction Notice under Rule 5. 21. Rule 5 of the Rules, 2005, deals with the particulars to be furnished in auction notice. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to take support from the decisions of this Court in G. Venkatesh v. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Hyd. and others; Arji Sankara Rao v. Govt. of A.P.; Kamala Wines v. Commissioner, P&E Hyd.; K. Hanmanth Rao and another v. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Hyd. and M. Peraih v. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise Hyd. (6 to 10 supra) to substantiate his contention that the notification should contain specified locality. 23. The above referred decisions of this Court relate to shifting of shops from one area to another area. They are in no way relevant for adjudication of the issue involved in this Writ Petition. 24. What is required to be specified in the Gazette Notification is locality/area. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that by reading these two words 'locality' and 'area', the only reasonable construction is locality for each shop in a particular area is to be specified so as to one excludes the other. 25. 24. What is required to be specified in the Gazette Notification is locality/area. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that by reading these two words 'locality' and 'area', the only reasonable construction is locality for each shop in a particular area is to be specified so as to one excludes the other. 25. I have gone through the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and Rules 4 and 50f the Rules, 2005. The words 'area' and 'locality' have been cautiously used in the section as well as in the Rules, so as to give leverage to the State Government to notify taking the entire Chilakaluripet Municipality as area or any part of it as locality for establishing a shop. When three shops are notified in Chilakaluripet Municipality without restricting the establishment of shops in a particular locality, the successful tenderers of the three shops are at liberty to establish their shops anywhere in Chilakaluripet Municipal area. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners tries to make out a case that the Rules are not in conformity with Section 17 of the Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 17 of the Act will prevail over the Rules. I do not see any contravention between the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules, 2005. A reading of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules, 2005, indicates that it is the discretion of the Government to specify the entire Chilakaluripet as one area or make a division of Chilakaluripet area into different localities. However, the competent authority decided to treat Chilakaluripet municipality as one area and called for tenders for establishment of three shops in Chilkaluripet Municipal area. The notification is in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules, 2005. 26. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground to declare that Notification No.41 dated 27-5-2010 in respect of Chilakaluripet Municipal Area is contrary either to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act or the Rules, 2005. 27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.