ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Rajiv Kumar to assert his right to dealership in respect of a group of liquor shops for country made liquor and a composite shop in Nawadah Municipal Council, pursuant to the sale Notification for the year 2012-13. 2. Pursuant to a public advertisement, the petitioner applied for licence for retail liquor shops “Group-7” in Nawadah Municipal Council. The settlement was made by auction in favour of one Prem Sagar. The licence granted to the said Prem Sagar came to be cancelled on 18th June 2012. Pursuant to the cancellation of the said licence, a fresh advertisement was issued for settlement of retail licence for “Group-7 shops”. The public notice was issued on 30th June 2012 and the settlement was made in favour of the respondent no. 4 on the same day. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that sale Notification specifically mentions that in case of cancellation of settlement of licence made in favour of the first bidder, the settlement would be made in favour of the second bidder for the remaining period. In the submission of Mr. Bharti, in the auction conducted for the year 2012-13, the petitioner was the second bidder. In case of cancellation of licence granted to Mr. Prem Sagar, it was the petitioner who was entitled to settlement of licence for the remaining period. Ignoring the said provision, the District Magistrate has granted the licence for the remaining period by auction sale to third person, the respondent no. 4. The petitioner was not aware of cancellation of licence granted to the aforesaid Prem Sagar; nor had he had the opportunity to compete in the auction sale conducted on 30th June 2012. Mr. Bharti has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the settlement of licence in respect of “Group-7 shops” in Nawadah Municipal Council as a matter of right. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar has appeared for the respondents- State of Bihar. He has contested the writ petition. Mr. Bharti has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the settlement of licence in respect of “Group-7 shops” in Nawadah Municipal Council as a matter of right. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar has appeared for the respondents- State of Bihar. He has contested the writ petition. He has submitted that according to Clause 4(Ka) of the sale Notification, settlement in favour of the second rank bidder is permitted only in case the first rank bidder does not accept the settlement or the settlement made in favour of the first rank bidder is cancelled on the same day i.e. on the date of auction sale. In the present case, the settlement made in favour of the first rank bidder and the licence granted to him was cancelled months after the date of the licence. Clause 4(Ka), therefore, is not attracted. The petitioner is not entitled to settlement or licence automatic being the second rank bidder. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi has appeared for the respondent no. 4. He has submitted that the respondent no. 4 was a bona fide bidder pursuant to the advertisement dated 30th June 2012. If at all the settlement has wrongly been made in favour of the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 4 should not be put to a loss. 6. The sale Notification is produced on the record of the writ Petition. Clause 4(Ka) is explicit. The said Clause expressly provides that in case of cancellation of licence granted to the first bidder, the licence for the remaining period would be settled in favour of the second bidder and in absence of the second bidder to the third bidder. 7. In view of the aforesaid express provision in the sale Notification, the right asserted by the writ petitioner has to be accepted. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the Petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to grant retail licence or make settlement in respect of “Group-7 retail liquor shops in favour of the petitioner for the remaining licence period i.e. up to 31st March 2013. Such settlement shall be made within 15 days from today. The petitioner will be liable to pay legitimate fees, security deposit, etc. The settlement made in favour of the respondent no. 4 will be cancelled. The security deposit and the advance licence fee paid by the respondent no. Such settlement shall be made within 15 days from today. The petitioner will be liable to pay legitimate fees, security deposit, etc. The settlement made in favour of the respondent no. 4 will be cancelled. The security deposit and the advance licence fee paid by the respondent no. 4 will be refunded to the respondent no. 4 after adjusting the amount payable by the respondent no. 4 within 15 days from today. 9. Parties will bear their own cost.