ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. These two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by 22 persons aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.2, Commissioner of Excise, Patna in extending the date of receipt of the applications for grant of licence for retail sale of liquor in Nawada district. 2. By a public notice dated 12th February 2013, the Collector, Nawada invited applications for grant of licence for retail sale of country liquor, spiced liquor and foreign liquor in the district of Nawada. The last date for receipt of the applications was 7th March 2013. The petitioners before us are those persons who have applied for such licence on or before 7th March 2013 and have made requisite deposits. 3. Pursuant to some information received by the petitioners that the Excise Superintendent, Nawada, in connivance with some other officers in the department, was receiving applications after the specified date of 7th March 2013, kept a watch near the Excise Office. Pursuant to such watch, the petitioners, in wee hours on 9th March 2013, caught certain Excise officials red handed with as many as 147 applications. Evidently, the said applications were received by such officials at their residence and they were trying to register the said applications with the applications received in the Excise office by the specified date. The petitioners have lodged a police case in this respect against the Excise Superintendent and some office clerks and the 71 persons who made an attempt to push their applications illegally. 4. Pursuant to the illegality unearthed by the petitioners and the police case lodged by the petitioners, an enquiry was sought to be made by the Excise Commissioner. Pursuant to the said enquiry, the Additional Collector, Nawada has made a report on 9th March 2013. Pursuant to the said report, having realised the impossibility of segregating the applications received during the official time and the applications received after the closure of the last date, the Commissioner has issued the impugned public notice. Under the impugned public notice, the Excise Commissioner has extended the last date of receiving the applications to 23rd March 2013 and has declared that only those applications received after the date of publication i.e. 11th March 2013 would be considered. Under the impugned public notice, the Excise Commissioner has extended the last date of receiving the applications to 23rd March 2013 and has declared that only those applications received after the date of publication i.e. 11th March 2013 would be considered. In other words, those applications which were already made pursuant to the public notice dated 12th February 2013 within the specified time would not be valid for consideration. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present Petitions. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti has appeared for the writ petitioners. He has submitted that not only that a wrong has been committed by the Excise officials; by the impugned public notice the said wrong has been perpetuated and has been given a seal of authenticity by the Commissioner of Excise. 6. The Petitions are contested by the State Government. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared. He has conceded that the illegality has been committed. He has relied upon the counter affidavit and the aforesaid report dated 9th March 2013. He has submitted that it is not possible to segregate the applications received illegally after the closure of the 7th March 2013. It is, therefore, considered best to invite the applications afresh. At the most, the applications already made prior to 7th march 2013 may be considered along with the fresh applications now received. He has also submitted that not more than 700 applications have been received pursuant to the public notice dated 11th March 2013. 7. Some of the applicants whose applications were found in the custody of the Excise officials on 9th March 2013 have approached this Court with an intervention application Interlocutory Application No.2280 of 2013. Learned advocate Mr. Kumar Sunil has appeared for the interveners. He has submitted that anything said in these Petitions would adversely affect the criminal trial against these interveners. No order, therefore, should be made on these Petitions. 8. Some of the applicants pursuant to the public notice dated 11th March 2013, have also filed intervention application Interlocutory Application No.2305 of 2013. Learned advocate Mr. Kumar Sunil has appeared for these interveners. He has submitted that unless all the applicants are made party-respondents and are given opportunity of hearing, the public notice dated 11th March 2013 cannot be quashed as those applicants have a right to apply for licence. 9. Both these intervention applications are rejected. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Kumar Sunil has appeared for these interveners. He has submitted that unless all the applicants are made party-respondents and are given opportunity of hearing, the public notice dated 11th March 2013 cannot be quashed as those applicants have a right to apply for licence. 9. Both these intervention applications are rejected. 10. As far as the interveners in Interlocutory Application No. 2280 of 2013 are concerned they, admittedly, were the persons whose applications were found in the custody of the Excise officials on 9th March 2013 well past the last date of receipt of the applications. Whatever be their explanation and their complicity will be decided in the criminal case. We need not consider their case in the present writ Petitions. If they are the persons who had made applications after the closing of the last date and have tried to push their applications wrongfully, they cannot have a right to audience before this Court or to participate in the licence proceeding. 11. The interveners in Interlocutory Application No.2305 of 2013 are the opportunists. Admittedly, they had not applied for the licence pursuant to the public notice dated 12th February 2013. The public notice dated 11th March 2013 came to be issued in fortuitous circumstances. No right to apply for licence accrued to any person pursuant to such fortuitous circumstances. 12. Evidently, a wrong has been committed. It is incomprehensible that such a wrong could have been committed without the complicity of the applicants and the officials of the Excise Department. It is very strange that in these times of technology, the respondents did not set up the procedure to ensure transparency and to plug the possibility of any illegality. The least that the respondents could have done was to make it compulsory to issue a digital receipt of the money received from the applicants indicating the date and time of the receipt. This could have largely overruled the possibility of receiving the applications and the money after closing of the last date. There could have been a better procedure also. To us, it appears that the respondents either did not pay attention to the minute details or did deliberately leave the lacunae in procedure so that the process can be manipulated. Either case calls for enquiry in the matter. As to the criminal case, it will be decided in its due course. 13. To us, it appears that the respondents either did not pay attention to the minute details or did deliberately leave the lacunae in procedure so that the process can be manipulated. Either case calls for enquiry in the matter. As to the criminal case, it will be decided in its due course. 13. We do agree with Mr. Satyabir Bharti that if the respondents are permitted to extend the date as has been done under the public notice dated 11th March 2013, all those applicants, who have pushed their applications past the last date of receiving of applications, will be paid premium and their applications illegally received would be legitimatized. Those persons who did not apply pursuant to the public notice dated 12th February 2013 also will get an advantage by the extended date. We do not suppose that the respondents should be allowed to legalize or to perpetuate the illegalities; nor do the respondents are required to give fresh lease to those applicants who had not applied for the licence pursuant to the public notice dated 12th February 2013. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these Petitions. The public notice dated 11th March 2013 is quashed and set aside. 15. This leaves us the question how the matters should be allowed to proceed. Evidently, those 71 persons whose applications were found in the custody of the Excise officials on 9th March 2013 cannot be allowed to participate in the licensing process, at least not in this year. The question that remains is in respect of the applications which were already received by the Excise officials by 7th March 2013. Possibly, quite a few of them were received by the Excise officials illegally after the closure of the last date i.e. 7th March 2013, illegally issuing receipts under the date 7th March 2013. At the moment, there is no material before us from which we can decipher the applications illegally received past the last date. The facts stated in the report dated 9th March 2013 also speak volumes about the manner in which the licensing process is conducted and how the loopholes are maintained so that the matters can be manipulated. 16. In our opinion, although it is not possible to give a foolproof direction so as to rule out any possibility of illegal applications being considered, the situation can be salvaged by following direction. 17. 16. In our opinion, although it is not possible to give a foolproof direction so as to rule out any possibility of illegal applications being considered, the situation can be salvaged by following direction. 17. The respondents will carry out the licensing process in the manner stated in the public notice dated 12th February 2013. Only those applications will be considered which have been received by the close of the last date i.e. 7th March 2013 and the money received had been deposited in the Government Treasury. 18. This direction will be followed scrupulously. Any deviation would amount to contempt of this Court. 19. The respondent State Government and the Excise Commissioner are directed to chart out the procedure to make it as foolproof as possible to avoid possibility of commission of any illegality of the present nature or any other illegality. At the least, in future all receipts issued in respect of the applications and the money received shall bear the date and time of the receipt of the application and the money. 20. Order accordingly. 21. Registry will maintain copy of this order in each Petition.