JUDGMENT : A.K. Goel, C.J. - This batch of writ petitions seeks quashing of Circulars dated 21.8.2013 and 31.10.2013, Annexures-I and II, issued by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha and the Collector, Cuttack respectively. By the first Circular, inter 02.01.2014 alia, the liquor shops on the Government land and along the National Highway have been directed to be closed. The second Circular purports to give effect to the first circular in respect of IMFL "ON" or "OFF" shops along the National Highway by referring to an order of this Court dated 18.9.2013 in W.P. (C) No. 19674 of 2013 (Susama Jena Vs. State of Odisha & others). Case of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 25913 of 2013 is that they are EP Holders of IMFL "ON" shops in Cuttack District and running their liquor shops on private lands along the National Highway. They are having licences which have been renewed for the year 2013-14 on payment of annual licence fee as per Excise Policy 2013-14, but their licences have been discontinued w.e.f. 1.11.2013 by referring to above order of this Court dated 18.9.2013. 2. The grievance in the petition is that neither any prior notice was given nor opportunity of hearing was given before passing of the impugned order. The impugned action resulted in undue hardship and irreparable financial loss. The existing huge stock of IMFL and Beer remains unsold and is lying in a closed room, which may be contaminated because of perishable nature and rendered unfit for human consumption. The power of prohibiting the grant of licence for retail sale of intoxicants is vested in the State Government under Subsection (f) of Section 89 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915. The Excise Commissioner has no authority to make rules or prohibit grant of licence beyond the said statute, rules or applicable policy. The State Government, vide notification dated 25.5.2005, amended the Rule 34 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 1965, prohibiting opening of any new shop for consumption of liquor on the vendor's premises on the National Highway. In absence of any restriction by the State Government, the Excise Commissioner or the Collector could not restrain the petitioners from running their liquor shops on the National Highway. In absence of any restriction by the State Government, the Excise Commissioner or the Collector could not restrain the petitioners from running their liquor shops on the National Highway. Reference has been made to the counter affidavit filed in a PIL being W.P. (C) No. 19790 of 2012 filed by one Jaysankar Acharya to cancel the licence of IMFL OFF/ON shops situated within 500 meters along the National Highway in the State of Orissa. The State of Orissa took a clear stand that there is no restriction to issue IMFL "ON"/"OFF" licence within 500 meters along the National Highway. The said restriction was done away with by way of amendment to 2005 Rules. However, on receiving a letter from the Government of India, Road Transport & Highway regarding restriction on liquor shops on the National Highway, the State Government constituted a Committee in the matter to examine the issue. Decision in the matter is yet to be taken. The Collector could not act on the instruction of the Excise Commissioner which is contrary to the statutory Rules. On coming to know of an order of this Court dated 18.9.2013 in WP(C) No. 19674 of 2013 (Susama Jena Vs. State of Orissa and others) the petitioners applied for intervention, but since no substantive relief could be given on that application, they have filed independent writ petitions. The shops of the petitioners were not on Government land and, thus, the order of the High Court was not applicable to them. The same has been misunderstood. There are 692 liquor shops on National Highway in the State of Orissa, but only in the district of Cuttack closure notice was issued which was unfair and against parity. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by Excise Commissioner, it has been stated that all the Collectors were asked to carry out the order of this Court dated 18.9.2013 upon which 116 liquor shops have been closed throughout the State which include 27 liquor shops in the district of Cuttack and 99 other shops out of which 58 were on the Government land and 31 on Government land along the National Highway. Action was also initiated against officials responsible for allowing the liquor shops on the Government land along the National Highway. The Collector, Cuttack had sought clarification regarding closure of liquor shops on private land along the National Highway. Action was also initiated against officials responsible for allowing the liquor shops on the Government land along the National Highway. The Collector, Cuttack had sought clarification regarding closure of liquor shops on private land along the National Highway. The Excise Commissioner requested the Excise Department to issue necessary clarification on the basis of the orders of this Court, but the clarification is still awaited. Prayer has been made to grant at least three months time to file counter affidavit. 4. The other writ petitions are by and large are identical. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate for the State. 6. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that no instruction contrary to a rules can be issued in respect of liquor shops on National Highway on private land. In any case, the closure could not be limited to Cuttack district only when licence fee has already been deposited. Reliance has been placed on Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank and Others Vs. Manoj Kumar Chak, State of Orissa and Others Vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, ; and Shanti Prasad Devi and Another Vs. Shankar Mahto and Others. It is submitted that though it was for the State to give or not to give a licence for sale of liquor as per its policy, but having given a licence, it was not permissible for the State to interfere with the location of the shops before expiry of period of licence. In any case, the licence fee was liable to be refunded and the licensee was entitled to shift the shop to any other place if a shop on Government land or highway or near the highway was not to be allowed. In case of shops on private land, the contention is that there is no illegality in running of the said shops. Even in past restriction was only in respect of "OFF" shops, which was also done away with in the year 2005. Thereafter, there is no justification for any interference in running of "ON" or "OFF" shops along the National Highway or within 500 meters thereof. Alternatively, licence fee was liable to be refunded or stocks are required to be permitted to be sold or location was required to be allowed to be shifted, at the option of the licensee. 7. Thereafter, there is no justification for any interference in running of "ON" or "OFF" shops along the National Highway or within 500 meters thereof. Alternatively, licence fee was liable to be refunded or stocks are required to be permitted to be sold or location was required to be allowed to be shifted, at the option of the licensee. 7. Stand on behalf of the State is that no shop was permitted on the Government land and the same is illegal and could be closed. If the licensee applied for shifting, the same could be permitted only after following due procedure as licence had to be location specific under the rules. Amendment of the Rule has not been disputed but it is stated that the matter has been discussed at the level of the Government and it has been decided not to allow the liquor shops along the National Highway and within 500 meters thereof, in view of the objection of the Government of India having regard to the safety on the roads. 8. After conclusion of the hearing on 9.12.2013, a file has been produced by the Government Advocate with a memorandum dated 16.12.2013, referring to instructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Road Safety Cell) directing that liquor shops be not opened on National Highways. Reference has also been to proceedings of meeting dated 23.7.2012 presided over by the Minister, Finance, Public Enterprises & Excise of Orissa Government. The Minister directed that no proposal for opening of new shops within 500 meters of National Highway be sent. Further reference has been made to letter dated 1.12.2011 from the Secretary (Transport) Ministry of Road Transport and Highways(Road Safety Cell), making a mention of menace of drunken driving requiring removal of liquor shops along National Highways and also requiring, where licence had already been issued, corrective action being taken. Reference has also been made to the Minutes of meeting dated 23.9.2013 held in the chamber of Principal Secretary, Excise Department of Orissa to examine the issue of closure of liquor shops on National Highways. Decision was taken not to issue any fresh licence along the National Highway and to relocate the sites for shifting of existing shops beyond 500 meters in a phased manner and to cancel the permit rooms in 'Off' shops throughout Odisha. Decision was taken not to issue any fresh licence along the National Highway and to relocate the sites for shifting of existing shops beyond 500 meters in a phased manner and to cancel the permit rooms in 'Off' shops throughout Odisha. The file also contains the rules of Government of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar on the issue of location of liquor shops on the National Highways. 9. The following questions arise for consideration:- (1) Whether the Excise Commissioner can direct closure of liquor shops on Government land or on private land, along the National Highway or within 500 meters thereof? (ii) In case it was permitted, whether the licence fee was liable to be refunded and location of the shop allowed to be shifted, at the option of the licensee? 10. Before going into above questions, it may be worthwhile to refer to the legal position in the matter of dealing with the intoxicating drinks and drugs. Right to trade in intoxicating drinks is not a fundamental right. Trade or business in liquor can be completely prohibited. Article 47 of the Constitution require the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks and all drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purpose. The State is duty bound to protect the human health and to move towards prohibition. However, unless prohibition policy is introduced, giving of liquor licence is permissible as per policy of the State and subject to such terms and conditions as may be laid down. If the State does not adopt prohibition policy, the Excise policy has to conform to the spirit of Article 47 read with Article 21 of the Constitution. It cannot be disputed that the Excise Commissioner has to work within the framework of statute and the Excise Policy and not on whims. 11. In the present case, no clear policy to prohibit shops on the National Highways or even 500 meters thereof has been shown though there is some indication of desirability of not permitting liquor shops on Highways in the interest of public policy. The fact remains that licences have been granted on National Highways and licence fee collected. 11. In the present case, no clear policy to prohibit shops on the National Highways or even 500 meters thereof has been shown though there is some indication of desirability of not permitting liquor shops on Highways in the interest of public policy. The fact remains that licences have been granted on National Highways and licence fee collected. In the absence of express permission, liquor shops cannot be opened on the Government land but the State has expressly permitted liquor shops on highways and the same are sought to be closed without any clear policy, during the currency of such licences. Absence of clear policy, after due consideration of the consequences of permitting liquor shops on National Highways or in the immediate vicinity thereof, may call for direction to the State to take appropriate policy decision within a reasonable time. Needles to say that such policy has to be implemented uniformaly on defined para meters. If liquor shops have been allowed to be opened on National Highways and such decision is required to be reviewed, the same must be done in accordance with law. In such case, decision ought to be taken whether licence fee already collected is to be refunded to the extent of curtailing the period of licence or option to shift the shops to any other location, subject to the procedure being followed and subject to such location being allowed in accordance with the norms, ought to be given. In the present case, clear decision has not been taken to review the policy by a proper procedure and to implement the same in a fair and uniform manner. This may call for interference by this Court. Fairness in decision making is hallmark of a democratic government committed to rule of law. This is the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution even in dealing with liquor trade by duly licenced traders. Even so, this Court cannot close its eyes to the consideration of public safety and mechanically direct quashing of the order which may be deficient for want of fair procedure. Closing of liquor shops on the Government land and on the National Highways cannot be interfered with resulting in unauthorized encroachment of public land or ignoring the perceived endangering of security on highways by sale of liquor. On these issues, the policy makers have to take a call. 12. Closing of liquor shops on the Government land and on the National Highways cannot be interfered with resulting in unauthorized encroachment of public land or ignoring the perceived endangering of security on highways by sale of liquor. On these issues, the policy makers have to take a call. 12. In absence of formal and clear Government policy, the Excise Commissioner cannot order closure of shops but at the same time, Court may not interfere without Government taking a policy decision on the issue. Moreover, consequential policy matter of claims for refund of fee or time bound permission to dispose of stock or shift location has also to be dealt with by the State. 13. In the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs. Kandath Distilleries, it was observed 24. Article 47 is one of the directive principles of State policy which is fundamental in the governance of the country and the State has the power to completely prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, distribution and consumption of liquor as a beverage because it is inherently dangerous to human health. Consequently, it is the privilege of the State and it is for the State to decide whether it should part with that privilege, which depends upon the liquor policy of the State. The State has, therefore, the exclusive right or privilege in respect of potable liquor. A citizen has, therefore, no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a beverage and the activities, which are res extra commercium, cannot be carried on by any citizen and the State can prohibit completely trade or business in potable liquor and the State can also create a monopoly in itself for the trade or business in such liquor. This legal position is well settled. The State can also impose restrictions and limitations on the trade or business in liquor as a beverage, which restrictions are in nature different from those imposed on trade or business in legitimate activities and goods and articles which are res commercium. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in Vithal Dattatraya Kulkarni and Others Vs. Smt. Shamrao Tukaram Power and Others, P.N. Kaushal and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Krishna Kumar Narula etc. Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, Nashirwar and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. Vs. Smt. Shamrao Tukaram Power and Others, P.N. Kaushal and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Krishna Kumar Narula etc. Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, Nashirwar and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. Vs. McDowell and Co. and others, etc., and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 27. Liquor policy of the State is synonymous or always closely associated with the policy of the statute dealing with liquor or such obnoxious subjects. Monopoly in the trade of liquor is with the State and it is only a privilege that a licensee has in the matter of manufacturing and vending in liquor, so held, by this Court in State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Nagpur Distillers, Nagpur and Another, The courts are also not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation, any such policy should have been adopted or not. The 1998 policy has life only in that year and if any rights have accrued to any party, that have to be adjudicated then and there. The writ petition was moved only in the year 2000, by then, policy had been changed because the 1999 liquor policy was total ban, so also subsequent liquor policies. It is trite law that a court of law is not expected to propel into "the uncharted ocean" of the State's policies. The State has the power to frame and reframe, change and rechange, adjust and readjust policy, which cannot be declared as illegal or arbitrary on the ground that the earlier policy was better and suited to the prevailing situations. The situation which existed in the year 1998 had its natural death and cannot be revived in the year 2013, when there is total ban. 30. The legislature when confers a discretionary power on an authority, it has to be exercised by it in its discretion, the decision ought to be that of the authority concerned and not that of the court. The court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion. The court cannot impede the exercise of discretion of an authority acting under the statute by issuance of a writ of mandamus. The court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion. The court cannot impede the exercise of discretion of an authority acting under the statute by issuance of a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus can be issued in favour of an applicant who establishes a legal right in himself and is issued against an authority which has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so, but such a legal duty should emanate either in discharge of the public duty or operation of law. We have found that there is no legal duty cast on the Commissioner or the State Government exercising powers u/s 14 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules to grant the licence applied for. The High Court, in our view, cannot direct the State Government to part with its exclusive privilege. At best, it can direct consideration of an application for licence. If the High Court feels, in spite of its direction, the application has not been properly considered or arbitrarily rejected, the High Court is not powerless to deal with such a situation that does not mean that the High Court can bend or break the law. Granting liquor licence is not like granting licence to drive a cab or parking a vehicle or issuing a municipal licence to set up a grocery or a fruit shop. Before issuing a writ of mandamus, the High Court should have, at the back of its mind, the legislative scheme, its object and purpose, the subject-matter, the evil sought to be remedied, the State's exclusive privilege, etc. and not to be carried away by the idiosyncrasies or the ipse dixit of an officer who authored the order challenged. Majesty of law is to be upheld not by bending or breaking the law but by strengthening the law. 32. Discretionary power leaves the donee of the power free to use or not to use it at his discretion. (Refer Rani Drig Raj Kuer Vs. Raja Sri Amar Krishna Narain Singh, .) Law is well settled that the exercise of statutory discretion must be based on reasonable grounds and cannot lapse into the arbitrariness or caprice anathema to the rule of law envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution. (Refer Rani Drig Raj Kuer Vs. Raja Sri Amar Krishna Narain Singh, .) Law is well settled that the exercise of statutory discretion must be based on reasonable grounds and cannot lapse into the arbitrariness or caprice anathema to the rule of law envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is trite law that, though, no citizen has a legal right to claim a distillery licence as a matter of right and the Commissioner or the State Government is entitled to either not to entertain or reject the application, they cannot enter into a relationship by arbitrarily choosing any person they like or discriminate between persons similarly circumscribed. The State Government, when decides to grant the right or privilege to others, of course, cannot escape of the rigour of Article 14, in the sense that it can act arbitrarily. In such a situation, it is for the party who complains to establish that a discriminatory treatment has been meted out to him as against similarly placed persons but cannot demand a licence for establishing a distillery unit, as a matter of right. 33. In State of M.P. and Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others this Court held that: 33. ... No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape [from] the rigour of Article 14 [of the Constitution,] it cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It will, thus, be just and fair to direct the State to take decision on need to review its policy on the issues which have arisen. In case of licences already granted, if the same have to be discontinued, clear provision may be made about the consequences on the licence fee paid for the whole year and disposal of available unsold stock if any, as also the claim for option of relocating the existing shops. The petitioners will be at liberty to give their suggestions for due consideration by the competent authority under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and the rules framed thereunder and the State may finalize the issues at the earliest. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. The petitioners will be at liberty to give their suggestions for due consideration by the competent authority under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and the rules framed thereunder and the State may finalize the issues at the earliest. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Off