By The Court—Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra and Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This bunch of the writ petitions challenges the alleged action of the respondents/excise authorities in not accepting the application form for renewal of the excise licence for the shops in question for the excise years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. 3. The Writ Petition Nos. 2760 (MB) of 2011 and 2671(MB) of 2011 have been filed by Sri Sardar Saranjeet Singh Bhatia and Sri Rohit Arora, respectively whereas the Writ Petition No. 2797 (MB) of 2011, has been filed by Sri Mohit Jaiswal, Writ Petition No. 2794 (MB) of 2011, has been filed by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Jaiswal and Writ Petition No. 2793 (MB) of 2011, has been filed by Sri Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal. 4. A joint licence was issued showing Sri Mohit Jaiswal and Rohit Arora as the co-licencees for Indian made foreign liquor model shop. The other joint licence as co-licencee was issued in favour of Rohit Arora and Dharmendra Kumar Jaiswal for country made liquor shop and the third joint licence as co-licencees was issued in the name of Sardar Saranjeet Singh Bhatia and Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal for country made liquor shop. These licences were originally issued for the Excise Year 2009-10 and thereafter they were renewed for the Excise Year 2010-11. 5. The State Government for the allotment of country made liquor shops including the model shops has decided to renew the existing licences of the existing licencees for the Excise Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 6. The petitioners who were the co-licencees did not apply jointly for renewal of their licenses but in fact they made an attempt to get the licence renewed singly in their individual names. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Akhilesh Kalra representing one of the co-licensees has impressed upon the Court that the action of the respondents/excise authorities in not accepting the forms submitted by the petitioners was per se illegal as they were under the legal duty to accept the forms, though subsequently they could have refused to renew the licences on any valid ground. 8. 8. Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions received and the record he possesses, submitted that in fact these persons did not apply at all for renewal of the licence, much less jointly for the renewal of the licences as there appears to be some dispute amongst them regarding renewal of the licences in the joint names. 9. From the facts on record and the pleadings taken in the writ petitions, it is clear that the petitioners, Sri Sardar Saranjeet Singh Bhatia and Sri Rohit Arora, approached the district excise authorities/officers for issuance of forms for renewal which were issued on 14.3.2011, but thereafter they did not furnish the forms/applications for renewal in the joint names/co-licencees along with the basic license fee and the renewal fee. The case of these petitioners as given in Paragraphs 17 and 18 of Writ Petition No. 2760 (M/B) of 2011, is that they were under the expectation that their co-licencees who have also filed the petitions and are before us, would join them in getting the licences renewed but they backed out at the last moment and, therefore, under the compelling circumstances these petitioners thought to move the application for renewal of the licences in their sole names and for that purpose they prepared a demand draft for renewal fee. 10. Sri H.P. Srivastava, however, disputed that any such bank draft was ever presented or deposited and that no bank draft was deposited towards the licence fee. There is also nothing on record to indicate that any bank draft for licence fee was ever got prepared by the petitioners. 11. The petitioners S/Sri Dharmendra Kumar Jaiswal, Rohit Arora and Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal have urged that on 17.3.2011 along with a representation they have deposited the demand draft of the entire licences fee and the renewal fee, saying that the licences be issued in their sole names and not jointly with their co-licencees. 12. Grievance of these petitioners is that they were not issued the application form for renewal of the licences. 13. Since the application forms for renewal of the joint licences in which the petitioners were the co-licencees with respect to their respective shops was not filed/tendered, therefore, they stand ousted from the field of consideration for renewal of the licences for the excise year in question. 14. 13. Since the application forms for renewal of the joint licences in which the petitioners were the co-licencees with respect to their respective shops was not filed/tendered, therefore, they stand ousted from the field of consideration for renewal of the licences for the excise year in question. 14. Being aggrieved these petitions have been filed on 23.3.2011. 15. It is not in dispute that the last date for applying for renewal of licence was 18.3.2011. The date thus for applying for renewal stood expired even before the petitioners approached this Court. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Akhilesh Kalra, relying on the judgment of this Court at Allahabad in Re: Vishwakant Gupta v. State of U.P. & others, 2010 (6) AWC 6095 , submitted that the District Excise Officer was legally bound to consider the applications of the petitioners and pass an order of rejection if the petitioners were not entitled for renewal. 17. In the case of Vishwakant Gupta (Supra), the applications were invited for grant of licence for a beer shop situated in Sarabi Market. The petitioner of the said writ petition Vishwakant Gupta moved an application, showing one Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, as a co-applicant for grant of licence in a lottery held on 23.3.2009. The beer shop for the aforesaid area had been settled in favour of the petitioner along with Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, as a co-applicant. It was the case of the petitioner that on 15.5.2009, Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Firozabad to separate himself from the shop as a co-allottee at his own sweet will without any fear and pressure and he has nothing to do with the said shop. He requested that he be excluded from the aforesaid shop. The application was filed along with an affidavit. The licence was issued by the Licensing Officer on 29.9.2009 only in the name of Vishwakant Gupta and the name of Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta was not mentioned in the licence. The sole licensee, the petitioner did run the said shop upto 31.3.2010. 18. The application was filed along with an affidavit. The licence was issued by the Licensing Officer on 29.9.2009 only in the name of Vishwakant Gupta and the name of Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta was not mentioned in the licence. The sole licensee, the petitioner did run the said shop upto 31.3.2010. 18. However, Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, wrote a letter dated 10.3.2010 to the District Excise Officer, Firozabad, stating therein that the shop had been settled by lottery system and he was running the shop as a co-allottee and now there was no proper understanding between him and the petitioner, therefore, the licence be not renewed and the shop be cancelled. On this application of Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, the District Magistrate, Firozabad refused to renew the beer licence and directed that the same be settled through lottery system. It was under these circumstances, Sri Vishwakant Gupta approached the High Court. The High Court took the view that the licence was issued in the sole name of Sri Vishwakant Gupta and, therefore, he has a right to get the licence renewed. The objection of Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta would not have deprived the right of consideration for renewal of the licence of Sri Vishwakant Gupta. 19. The said case, therefore, is of no assistance to the petitioners. 20. In the instant case to the contrary the licence, admittedly, was issued in the joint name of the respective petitioners as already referred to hereinabove and they being the co-licensees, the licence could have been renewed in the name of co-licensees. Not only this the licence was renewed as co-licensees for the Excise Year 2010-11 and, therefore, to say that the licence could have been renewed in the name of one person, cannot be said to be correct. 21. True, the District Excise Officer could not have refused the acceptance of the form if it was submitted, even though it was defective for any reason; namely whether it was in the joint name of the co-licensees or not or it does not contain the requisite fee of renewal of licence fee as the scrutiny of the forms was to be done on the given date and on that date if it was found that the form was incomplete in any respect or that the applicant was not entitled for renewal, the same could have been rejected on that date. 22. 22. However, it has been strongly urged on behalf of the State that in fact no such form was ever furnished. That being so, we do not intend to enter into the disputed questions, whether any form was actually presented by the petitioners that too without the fee prescribed. 23. The reason why we do not intend to entertain the said plea is, that even, however assuming for the sake of arguments, that the District Excise Officer did not accept the form, it is evident from the own record of the petitioners that there was dispute between the partners; namely the co-licensees and for renewal of the licence admittedly at no point of time any application/form for renewal on behalf of both the co-licensees was ever submitted. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had taken steps to apply jointly with their co-licensees for renewal of the licence, rather the admitted case of the petitioners is that they made all efforts to get the licence renewed in their sole names, which was legally not possible. 24. Since the petitioners did not even make any effort for applying for renewal of the licence in the joint names with both the co-licencees signing on the form for renewal of licence, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to them, if such a form was actually not accepted by the excise authority. 25. Strangely, one of the co-licensees in one case had allegedly submitted a photocopy of the bank draft along with his representation dated 17.3.2011, saying that the licence be renewed, solely in his name. 26. Under which provision of rule, such a prayer could have been made and how a photocopy of the bank draft, will meet the requirement of deposit of necessary fee, could not be explained by Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. 27. This Court would not issue a futile writ nor any writ of mandamus for considering the petitioners’ application for renewal of the licence, which admittedly they did not apply for renewal of the licence in their joint names as co-licencees and both of them tried to oust the other licensees, for getting the licence renewed in singular name. 28. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to entertain the writ petitions. 29. The writ petitions are dismissed at this stage. (Petition dismissed) _____________