ORDER : ANJANA MISHRA, J. The present writ application has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the report, dated 25.03.2014, submitted by the Assistant Excise Inspector, recommending to the Assistant Excise Commissioner closure/shifting of the liquor shop No. 84 named and styled as PMC Retailed I.M.F.L. Shop, operating AT Boring Road, Patna. The writ petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents, in the Excise Department, Patna, and also the District Magistrate, Patna, to act in accordance with Rule 47 of the Rules framed under Section 90 of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule 47’) so as to allow the petitioner to continue to run the said liquor shop at the premises aforementioned. The writ petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, Excise Authorities and the District Magistrate, Patna, to renew the licence of the petitioner for the year 2014-2015 at his original location at Boring Road, Patna. 2. The facts, leading to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) The petitioner held License No. 84 of 2013-14, whereunder he became a licensee to sell, in retail, portable foreign liquor, for the year 2013-14.In terms of the said licence, the petitioner had been selling, in retail, foreign liquor from the shop named and styled as PMC Retail IMFL Shop No. 84, at Boring Road, Patna. The said shop stood located near A. N. College, Boring Road, Patna. (ii) Some complaints were made against the petitioner’s act of operating the said shop by people of the locality concerned alleging that due to the said shop, instances of eve-teasing had increased in the area and that people, having consumed liquor, create nuisance now and then. (iii) According to the petitioner, there had been no violation of law in running his said retail outlet of foreign liquor and it is the duty of the State to safeguard citizens. The petitioner points out that there is already a Police Station in the vicinity of the said premises, located at Boring Road, Patna, and if, at all, there was any law and order problem, it was due to inefficiency of the law and order agency. The petitioner points out that there is already a Police Station in the vicinity of the said premises, located at Boring Road, Patna, and if, at all, there was any law and order problem, it was due to inefficiency of the law and order agency. The Excise Inspector, Sadar, Patna, submitted his report in favour of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner’s shop was 100 metres away from the main gate (Satyendra Dwar) of A. N. College and its distance from the other gate (Kishori Dwar) was 90 metres and, therefore, there was no violation of the statutory provisions inasmuch as Rule 47 of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, provides that the minimum distance of a liquor shop from any Government recognized educational institution must be 50 metres in the urban area and 100 metres in the rural area. (iv) In the current financial year 2014-15, the writ petitioner became successful in receiving settlement of Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop No. 15 under Patna Municipal Corporation. Upon obtaining the licence in Form No. 2 in respect of Shop No. 15, the writ petitioner submitted an application for allowing him to upon the said Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop No. 15, at his original shop premises, located at Boring Road, Patna, where he had been operating in the past as indicated above, during the financial year 2013-14. The Excise Sub-Inspector, Sadar, Patna, was deputed to enquire into the matter and submit a report on the request which the writ petitioner had made. The Additional Excise Inspector, vide report, dated 25.03.2014, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Patna, declining to recommend the petitioner’s case for allowing him to run his liquor shop from the petitioner’s said premises at Boring Road, Patna, on the ground that litigation was pending and till disposal of the case, operation of Liquor Shop No. 15 its premises at Boring Road, Patna, shall not be allowed. As the petitioner was not allowed to run Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop No. 15 at the petitioner’s original location at Boring Road, Patna, and he had to accordingly shift his Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop No. 15 at a new location, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writs, as has been indicated above. 3. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The petitioner contends that the refusal to renew his licence for the year 2014-15 so as to enable him to run his liquor shop, at its original location, namely, Boring Road, Patna, is in violation of Section 42 of Bihar Excise Act, 1915, which enumerates different conditions, whereunder the State Government can either grant or suspend a licence and any attempt by the Licensing Authority to prevent or disturb the petitioner from operating his liquor shop, at Boring Road, Patna, without any valid reasons, amounts to violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by the petitioner that in absence of any judicial order refusing renewal of petitioner’s licence and operation of the petitioner’s shop at its original place, it is illegal to compel the petitioner to move his shop to an alternative place and that such a direction, compelling the petitioner to move his shop to an alternative premise, is arbitrary, unjust and against law. 5. In the wake of such submission, the petitioner prays that direction may be issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on his business at the location, where it had been in existence, for, the grant, cancellation or renewal of licence has to be governed by law and the respondent authorities had overreached the jurisdiction by declining to renew the licence to run the petitioner’s liquor shop at Boring Road, Patna, and compelling him to move to other premises. 6. 6. A counter affidavit by the respondents District Authorities (Respondents 2 to 4) has been filed in the present case contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had been granted an excise licence, for the financial year 2013-14, in respect of Patna Municipal Corporation IMFL Shop No. 84 and he continued to operate the same at its approved site situated near A. N. College, Boring Road, Patna, but in the year 2014-15 (i.e. the current financial year), the petitioner succeeded in getting settlement of PMC IMFL Shop No. 15 and, upon obtaining the licence in Form No. 2, in respect of Shop No. 15, submitted an application for approval of the site situated at Boring Road, Patna, whereupon Excise Sub Inspector, Sadar, East Circle, Patna, was deputed to make enquiry and in pursuance thereof, the Excise Sub-Inspector aforementioned submitted a report stating therein that it was the same site, where the petitioner had been operating Excise Shop No. 84. The said report, dated 25.3.2014, has been marked as Annexure 3. It is clarified, in the said report, that the matter, with regard to running of the Excise Shop, at the site, in question, at Boring Road, Patna, is pending in Patna High Court. By the report, dated 25.03.2014, aforementioned, it was recommended that the site, in question, be not approved and the petitioner be asked to offer another objection free site for opening of Excise Shop No. 15 in the current financial year. 7. It is submitted by the respondents that because of some complaints, which had been registered with regard to running of the liquor shop located in the vicinity of A. N. College, Patna, coupled with the report submitted by the Excise Sub Inspector, it was considered undesirable to approve the site, in question, at the location, which the petitioner had chosen, and, as such, the petitioner was asked to offer another objection free site. The respondents also contend that the petitioner, then, offered another site for opening of IMFL Shop No. 15, which was duly approved by the authorities concerned and the petitioner’s shop is being run at the said alternative site. 8. The respondents also contend that the petitioner, then, offered another site for opening of IMFL Shop No. 15, which was duly approved by the authorities concerned and the petitioner’s shop is being run at the said alternative site. 8. The respondents have also brought on record a complaint filed by interested persons against the functioning of the petitioner’s liquor shop near the A. N. College and also the I.A. No. 5106 of 2013 filed in CWJC No. 9866 of 2013 marked as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively. The respondents further submit that upon proper enquiry, they had given due opportunity to the petitioner to function at an alternative site, which was found to be objection free in terms of Rule 47 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and there was no violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has been functioning at the alternative premises. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that no citizen has the fundamental right to trade or carry on business in the properties or rights belonging to the Government and since the Government has the exclusive right to carry on the trade in liquor unless it permits any other person by granting licence to sell liquor, the petitioner cannot take recourse to, and seek protection of, Articles 14 or 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In support of their above contention, Mr. J. P. Karn, learned counsel for the respondents, has placed reliance on P. N. Kaushal vs. Union of India (AIR 1938 SC 1457), wherein the Supreme Court has held that dealing in intoxicant is not trade or business within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and that the trade, in liquor, stands on a different footing from other trades and, hence, restrictions, which are not permissible to be imposed on other trades, are lawful and reasonable so far the trade in liquor is concerned. 11. It is the contention of the respondents that the action of the Excise Authorities cannot be held to be unjust, arbitrary or illegal inasmuch as the matter was highlighted on the basis of some public complaints made before this Court and since the issue was pending adjudication in CWJC No. 9866 of 2013. 12. 11. It is the contention of the respondents that the action of the Excise Authorities cannot be held to be unjust, arbitrary or illegal inasmuch as the matter was highlighted on the basis of some public complaints made before this Court and since the issue was pending adjudication in CWJC No. 9866 of 2013. 12. Let us, now, deal with the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned. What needs to be noted, at the very outset, is that the dispute between the parties falls in a narrow compass inasmuch as the questions are (i) whether the respondents have acted fairly and legally in refusing to permit the continuance of the liquor shop, at the site, where it was being operated in the last financial year, and (ii) whether refusal to grant licence to run petitioner’s liquor shop, at its original place, is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and/or in contravention of the Rules framed under Section 90 of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915. 13. In the context of the facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 47 contending firmly that since the petitioner has, in no way, contravened the provisions referred to therein, the action of the respondents in denying the petitioner his right to function at the location, where PMC Shop No. 84 was operational, is clearly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Rule 47, 14. Rule 47, referred to above, is quoted hereunder:- “47(1) No shop shall be licensed for the consumption of liquor on the vendor’s premises- (a) in a market-place, or (b) at the entrance to a market place, or (c) In a Municipal or Corporation area within a distance of 50 meters and in other areas, within a distance of 100 meters of a batching ghat, educational institution, hospital, religious institution, factory, petrol pump, Railway Station, railway yard, Bus Stand, harijan or labour colony (National Highway or State Highway) or other places of public resort or any other place considered necessary. Note. …… (d) ……. 2. Explanation - (i) “educational institution” means any pre-primary, primary or secondary school, managed or recognized by any local authority of the State Government or the Central Government or any College affiliated to any University established by law, but does not include any private coaching institution; (ii) …. Note. …… (d) ……. 2. Explanation - (i) “educational institution” means any pre-primary, primary or secondary school, managed or recognized by any local authority of the State Government or the Central Government or any College affiliated to any University established by law, but does not include any private coaching institution; (ii) …. (iii) the distance referred to in clause (c) shall be measured from the midpoint of the entrance of the shop along the nearest path by which a pedestrian ordinarily reaches’ (a) the mid-point of the nearest gate of the institution, if there is a compound wall, and, if there is no compound wall, the mid-point of the nearest entrance of the institution, or (b) …. (2) Any shop in respect of which a licence has been granted, shall not be deemed to be situated within the prohibited distance referred to in sub-clause (c ) of clause (1) if at any time, after such licence is granted, any institution or place referred to in that sub-clause comes into existence within a distance if fifty meters or, as the case may be, one hundred meters, from the shop, during the currency of that licence. (3) ….. Provided that the restriction imposed by this sub-rule shall not apply to foreign liquors licenses granted to hotels and restaurants for consumption on the premises.” 15. In the context of Rule 47, it has been contended by the petitioner that the shop, in question, falls within the permissible limit of distance as prescribed by Rule 47(i)(c) inasmuch as the petitioner’s said liquor shop, at Boring Road, Patna, was located at a distance of 90 metres from A.N. College; whereas a liquor shop, in a township, can be located at a distance of 50 metres from an educational institution and, hence, the action of the respondents, in asking the petitioner to shift to an alternative premises, is wholly uncalled for and wanting in rationale. 16. Countering the aforementioned submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the State Government has been endowed with the power to regulate the grant of licenses for new shops under Rule 48 of Bihar Excise Act and the Collector has been given the power to issue orders accordingly. Rule 48 reads: “48. Countering the aforementioned submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the State Government has been endowed with the power to regulate the grant of licenses for new shops under Rule 48 of Bihar Excise Act and the Collector has been given the power to issue orders accordingly. Rule 48 reads: “48. In granting licenses for new shops, and, as far as practicable in granting licenses for established liquor shops, the Collector shall have regard to the following principles:- (a) A liquor shop should not be inaccessible to consumers, but it should not be in such a situation as to obtrude itself onthe attention of the public or to render persons passing by subject to annoyance from persons drinking. (b) In towns, the position of a liquor shop should be so for public that persons entering it should not escape observation, and it should be such as to render supervision easy, but it should not be so prominent as to compel attention, e.g. by occupying a whole side of a public square. (c) A liquor shop should never occupy a position to which the near neighbours object on grounds which, upon inquiry, appear to be sufficient and free from malice or ulterior motives.” 17. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to Rule 48 (c ) which clearly states that a liquor shop should never be allowed to function at a place to which the neighbours objects on grounds, which, on enquiry, appear to be sufficient and free from malice or ulterior motive. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that taking recourse to this provision of law and in view of the fact that serious objections had been raised by the students of A. N. College, Boring Road, Patna, regarding the disturbances caused on account of running of the shop, in question, the concerned authorities had conducted an enquiry and pursuant thereto, the Inspector had submitted a report requesting that no licence be issued to run the liquor shop at the outlet located near A. N. College, whereupon the respondents/authorities concerned declined to grant licence to run the petitioner’s liquor shop at its original site. 18. 18. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also brought on record the complaints filed by the students of A. N. College, which were incorporated in the PIL and the Intervention Petition filed by the students, raising serious objection to the existence of the said shop. 19. Objection to the running of the said shop, at its original site, also finds place in the Intervention Petition filed in CWJC No. 9866 of 2013, a PIL, wherein an order has been passed, on 18.2.2014, by this Court to the effect that since the existing settlements are at their end and fresh settlements are under process, the matter is adjourned for further consideration of the issues involved in context of the fresh settlement. 20. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and considering the fact that Rule 48 of the Excise Rules gives liberty to the District Magistrate to regulate the sale and purchase of liquor in cases, where there have been objections, as is apparent in the present case, we find and hold that there is no illegality in the report submitted by the Assistant Excise Inspector recommending shifting of Liquor Shop No. 15 to an alternative objection free site. 21. Further-more, the respondents have clearly stated, at paragraph 7 of their counter affidavit, that the petitioner has been granted a licence for the year 2014-15 and he has been running his shop, namely, IMFL Shop No. 15, and that the same, on proper enquiry, has been found to be objection free in terms of Rule 47 and, on being approved by the authorities concerned, the petitioner has already started operating the licence at the approved site. 22. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, we find and hold that there was no illegality in the report submitted by the Inspector of Excise and in view of the facts and circumstances, which we have discussed above, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declines to issue writ setting aside the said report, dated 25.3.2014, contained in Annexure 3. Consequently, this Court further declines to issue any mandamus directing the respondent-Excise Authorities, Patna, and the District Magistrate, Patna, to permit the petitioner to function his liquor shop at the site located near A. N. College, Boring Road, Patna, especially, because of the fact that serious objections have been raised by the neighbours, which, upon enquiry, have appeared to be sufficient and free from malice or ulterior motive. 23. For the reasons stated above and in the interest of justice, this writ application fails and is accordingly dismissed. 24. No order as to costs.