JUDGMENT : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru-Respondent No.2 directing him to select a non-objectionable place for his conditionally renewed CL-9 licence and make an application for shifting of the said liquor vending shop before 15.06.2016, failing which, the licence will liable to be withdrawn under Section 30 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the licence premises may be liable to be closed down. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Notification Sl.No.58 Annexure-C dated 17.04.1998, which is quoted below, submitted that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the said impugned communication/order and threaten to withdraw the licence itself on the purported ground that the liquor vending shop is situated on a State Highway. Relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sri. M.C. Raju vs. State of Karnataka & others in W.A.No.3060/2010 (Excise) decided on 30.09.2010, learned counsel urged that only the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) has jurisdiction to pass such an order and the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the same and therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned AGA for the respondent-Departments, raised an objection of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and also submitted that the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 is a consequential notice upon the conditional renewal of CL-9 licence given to the petitioner for the year 2015-16 by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), who himself observed in that order that the licence premises is near the State Highway which comes under the restrictions under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Condition) Rules, 1967 and this was done after the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) held an enquiry and confirmed that the licence premises of the petitioner was at the objectionable place on State Highway. The learned AGA also submitted that the Public Interest Litigation filed by one Mr. The learned AGA also submitted that the Public Interest Litigation filed by one Mr. Rajashekaran, the Hon’ble Apex Court has formed a Committee and in pursuance of which, the State of Karnataka has also formed a Committee for laying down the guidelines about the location of the liquor vending shops and in view of the increasing number of motor vehicle accidents in the country and the concerns of road safety raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the PIL, he also submitted that as far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 is neither an order directing the petitioner to shift, which order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) while giving conditional renewal to the petitioner for the year 2015-16, and the impugned communication Annexure-A merely calls upon the petitioner to select a new business place for him which is not objectionable as per the existing Rule 5 of the Rules, 1967. 4. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the records. 5. The definition of “Deputy Commissioner” and “Joint Commissioner of Excise” and “Deputy Commissioner of Excise” are respectively given in Section 4 and 4A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. They are reproduced below for ready reference. “ 4. Deputy Commissioner – (1) The Deputy Commissioner shall within the limits of his jurisdiction, exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as are assigned by or under the provisions of this Act to a Deputy Commissioner subject to such control as the State Government may from time to time direct. (2) For the purposes of this Act, all Deputy Commissioners shall be subordinate to the Excise Commissioner. 4A. (Joint Commissioner of Excise and Deputy Commissioner of Excise) – (1) The State Government may appoint, by notification, as many as (Joint Commissioners of Excise or Deputy Commissioners of Excise) as it thinks fit, for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification. 4A. (Joint Commissioner of Excise and Deputy Commissioner of Excise) – (1) The State Government may appoint, by notification, as many as (Joint Commissioners of Excise or Deputy Commissioners of Excise) as it thinks fit, for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification. (2) (A Joint Commissioner of Excise or a Deputy Commissioner of Excise) appointed under subsection (1), shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions assigned to (a Joint Commissioner of Excise or a Deputy Commissioner of Excise) under this Act, as may be specified by the State Government in the notification, and thereupon the (Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner) shall not be competent to exercise the powers or perform the duties and functions so specified. (3) (A Joint Commissioner of Excise or a Deputy Commissioner of Excise) shall be subordinate to the Excise Commissioner and shall be subject to the control of the Excise Commissioner and the State Government”. 6. The Notification No.58 dated 17.04.1998 Annexure-C to the writ petition relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also reproduced below for ready reference. “Sl. No.58 NOTIFICATION No. FD 4 PES 98(III), dated 17-4-1998 In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of Section 7 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Government of Karnataka hereby direct, with immediate effect, that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise appointed under subsection (1) of Section 4A of the said Act shall: (i) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned to the Deputy Commissioner in respect of transfer and shifting of licence under any rule made under the said Act and grant of arrack shop licence under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Excise (Lease of the Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules, 1969; (ii) exercise all other powers and perform all other duties and functions assigned to the Deputy Commissioner by or under the Act, except disposal of the right of retail vend of liquors under the Karnataka Excise (Lease of the Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules, 1969 and grant of excise licence under any rules under the said Act (other than grant of arrack shop licence under clause (i) above), subject to the overall supervision and administrative control of the Deputy Commissioner”. The impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 is also reproduced below inextenso for ready reference. “No.EXE/Batham/Banava/CL2/397/2015-16 Dy. Commissioner’s Office Bangalore Urban District Bangalore Dated: 18.3.2016 Letter of Intimation Sub: Reg. Shifting of licenses at State/National Highway Ref: 1. This Office letter No. dated 6.2.2016 2. Your Written Reply dated 18.2.2016 ……….. You V.R. Prakash, got renewed you CL-9 licensee for the year 2015-16 and doing the business in the name of Venkateshwara Bar & Restaurant at No.163/277, Magadi Main Road, Taverekere, Bangalore. Since your licensed premises is near the State/National Highway which comes within the restriction under Rule-5 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Condition) Rules 1967, your licence was renewed conditionally for the year 2015-16. The Dy. Commissioner of Excise after holding an enquiry had confirmed that your licensed premises is in the objectionable place. In this regard vide Reference No.1 a cause notice was issued from this Office informing you to personally appear before this office within 7 days from the receipt of this notice to give your explanation, if any, and also directed you that if you make an application for shifting under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Condition) Rules your application will be entertained failing which your licence will be withdrawn under Sec.30 of the Act. You have failed to appear in person, but submitted your written statement to the Dy. Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore South, your statement cannot be considered in view of the public peace and safety. Hence you are hereby finally directed to select your conditionally renewed CL-9 licenced premises to a non objectionable place and make an application for shifting on or before 15.6.2016 failing which your licenced premises will be closed and the licence will be withdrawn under Sec.30 of the Act. Sd/- Dy. Commissioner Bangalore Urban District Bangalore. 7. The relevant portion of the Division Bench order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner interpreting the aforesaid Notification dated 17.04.1998 are also quoted below for ready reference. “7. The definition of Deputy Commissioner under Subsection 5 of Section 2 of the Act refers to the Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Department. The notification dated 17.4.1998 speaks about the powers that can be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. “7. The definition of Deputy Commissioner under Subsection 5 of Section 2 of the Act refers to the Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Department. The notification dated 17.4.1998 speaks about the powers that can be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. As a matter of fact, even the permission to shift the bar and restaurant from Eachalahalli Village to the present location at Kandali Village was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and in that view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner of revenue ought to have forwarded the objections or complaints, if any, to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to do the needful by virtue of notification dated 17.4.1998. 8. Learned Government Advocate also raised an objection that there is statutory appeal provided under the Act. Therefore, the very writ petition was not maintainable. 9. When once an order is passed by an authority which had no authority to pass such an order, it would become an order nonest in the eye of law. Therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable. With these observations. Annexure- M deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th July 2010 is set aside and Annexure- M is quashed. However, the authorities concerned are at liberty to proceed with the matter if it is warranted, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules in the light of above observations.” 8. After hearing the learned counsels and perusal of the aforesaid materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 cannot be said to be suffering from any patent lack of jurisdiction or can be said to be nonest in any manner in the eye of law. 9. Notwithstanding the clear availability of the efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Act before the Commissioner, if the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 were to be construed as an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for shifting of the premises, even otherwise it is just in the nature of a notice given to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner as defined under Section 4 of the Act to select and choose the different address in a non-objectionable area within the terms of Rule 5 of Rules of 1967. 10. 10. Rule 5 of Rules 1967 which is quoted below clearly prohibits the sale or vending of liquor on the State/National Highway and near the Institutions like schools, temples etc., The relevant extract of Rule5 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 are quoted below for ready reference. 5. Restriction in respect of location of shops – (1) No licence for sale of liquor shall be granted to a liquor shop or premises selected within a distance of 100 metres from any religious or educational institution or Hospital or any Office of the State Government or Central Government or Local Authorities or in a residential locality, where the inhabitants are predominantly belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or within a distance or 220 metres from the middle of the State Highways or National Highways. [Provided that where a shop is sanctioned to a village the population of which is less than two thousand five hundred, such shop shall be located outside the residential locality of the village.] [Explanation – [(1) For the purpose of this rule “National Highway” or “State Highway” shall not include such parts of the National Highway or State Highway as are situated within the limits of a Municipal Corporation, City or Town Municipal Council, or such other authority having a population of twenty thousand or more]. [Explanation – (2) For the purpose of this rule the expression “Hospital” means any Government Hospital, Primary Health Centre or Primary Health Unit and includes a Private Hospital or a Private Nursing Home which has the facility of a minimum of thirty beds for treatment of inpatients. Explanation – (3) For the purpose of this rule the expression “Office of the State Government or Central Government or Local Authority” means and includes any State or Central Government Office headed by Group ‘A’ or ‘B’ grade officers and the main Administrative Offices of Local Bodies like City Corporation, City Municipal Council, Town Municipal Council, Town Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat, Taluk panchayat and Grama Panchayat and such other offices of the State Government, Central Government or Local Authorities as may be specified by the Government from time to time. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall after making such enquiry as he deems fit approve the premises of liquor shop so selected and thereafter the description of the premises of liquor shop shall be entered in the Licence to be issued. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall after making such enquiry as he deems fit approve the premises of liquor shop so selected and thereafter the description of the premises of liquor shop shall be entered in the Licence to be issued. Provided that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise may, with the prior approval of the Excise Commissioner and for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit the location of any shop within a distance of 100 metres, but not less than 50 metres from the institutions, hospital, office or locality specified in sub-rule (1) within the City Municipality or City Corporation limits. [Provided further that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise may grant licence to locate any liquor shop in a premises situated within a distance of 220 metres from the middle of a State Highway or a National Highway if such premises is located in a predominantly inhabited area, or extension of a town, village, or area the population of which is more than two thousand five hundred and where a licence to locate shop in such premises was granted or was existing during the period commencing from 1st July, 1992 and ending on [30th June, 1994.] 11. From the quoted portion of the impugned Letter of Intimation of the Deputy Commissioner Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner has not directed any shifting of the business place of the petitioner, but has only asked him to abide by the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise while giving conditional renewal of the licence for the year 2015-16, which he found to be in violation of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1967. The order of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise has not been placed on record by the petitioner for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Therefore, the imposition of this condition as stipulated in the order is not verifiable. 12. Be that as it may, this Court is also of the opinion that the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 is not in the nature of an order at all. Therefore, the imposition of this condition as stipulated in the order is not verifiable. 12. Be that as it may, this Court is also of the opinion that the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 18.03.2016 is not in the nature of an order at all. Not only it is labeled as letter of intimation, but the operative portion of the impugned communication itself says that the petitioner may either select non-objectionable place or apply for change of place which will be considered, but if it is not done, then the Deputy Commissioner may invoke his powers to withdraw the licence under Section 30 of the Act and shop in question at the State Highway shall be liable to be closed down. 13. The petitioner instead of filing his response/reply to the said communication has directly approached this Court by way of present writ petition. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections/reply in response to the earlier notice dated 06.02.2016 in No.EXE/BhaTaMa/BaNaVa/CL9/397/201516 dated 17.02.2016, a copy of which is produced before the Court for perusal during the course of arguments. In paragraph5 of the said objections filed before the Deputy Commissioner, before the impugned Letter of Intimation dated 18.03.2016 was issued to him, the petitioner has stated as under: 5. It is submitted that the proposed action is one without jurisdiction inasmuch as the this Hon’ble Authority would get the jurisdiction to pass the order only in the cases in which the order under Rule 5(4)(b) of the Rules is not complied with. In the instant case since the declaration of the road as State Highway or National Highway is not covered within Rule 5 of the Rules the this Hon’ble Authority has no jurisdiction to pass order as for any other reasons other than the one provided under Rule 5”. 14. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has gone to the extent of even contending that since the declaration of the said State Highway or National Highway are not covered within Rule 5 of the Rules, 1967, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass any order. 14. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has gone to the extent of even contending that since the declaration of the said State Highway or National Highway are not covered within Rule 5 of the Rules, 1967, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass any order. The Explanation to Rule 5 quoted above with regard to National highway stipulates that the offending area within a distance of 220 metres from the middle of a State highway or National highways shall not include such parts of the National highway or State highway as are situated within the limits of a Municipal Corporation, City or Municipal Council, or such other Authority having a population of twenty thousand or more. 15. To make out a case for falling within this exception, the petitioner obviously has to establish certain facts before the concerned Authority. Neither any such material has been placed before this Court nor any such enquiry is possible while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner must therefore, establish these facts if he intends to avail the aforesaid exception under Rule 5 of Rules 1967. 16. From the materials available on record, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner has relied upon such enquiry already held by the competent Authority namely the Deputy Commissioner of Excise while giving conditional renewal of the licence to the petitioner for the year 2015-16. If the petitioner intends to controvert any such findings of the enquiry of Deputy Commissioner, the only remedy available to him in the aforesaid factual matrix is to file an appeal before the learned Commissioner in terms of Section 61(2) of the Act. 17. This Court is also of the considered opinion that mere delegation of powers or some of the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise under Section 4A of the Act vide Notification dated 17.04.1998 does not take away the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner himself to pass such orders in accordance with law. Such orders cannot be said to be nonest or suffering from any patent lack of jurisdiction if passed by an Authority of higher rank as defined under Section 4 of the Act over the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) as defined under Section 4A of the Act. Such orders cannot be said to be nonest or suffering from any patent lack of jurisdiction if passed by an Authority of higher rank as defined under Section 4 of the Act over the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) as defined under Section 4A of the Act. While so observing, it is again made clear that Annexure-A Letter of Intimation issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, is neither an order directing the shifting of business place, nor withdrawal of the licence itself. It is merely a notice given to the petitioner to abide by the conditions of renewal of CL-9 licence, failing which, the proposed action of closing down the shop at the offending place and withdrawal of licence may be taken. 18. It would be absolutely premature for this Court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of the existence of the petitioner’s liquor vending shop at the given address at this stage in the absence of clear facts established by the petitioner in the due process before the Authorities concerned of the respondent-Departments itself. 19. This Court also cannot shut eyes to the large number of motor vehicle accidents taken place in the country on account of liquor vending shops near the National and State Highways. The majority of motor accidents take place because the drivers of the heavy vehicles who drive such heavy vehicles on the National and State Highways visit the Dhabas/Bars and Restaurants near the State/National Highways and consume such easily available liquor. The very purpose of Rule 5 would be defeated, if this liquor vending shops are allowed to have free and unhindered existence at such places near Highways. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in large number of cases, including in the case of Khodays Distilleries Ltd. & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others, (1995) 1 SCC 574 , has clearly held that there is no fundamental right to carry the business of liquor and therefore, no vested right can be assumed by such traders of liquor to carry on their business at the given place and they are undoubtedly subject to the rigors and limitations of the Rules applicable for regulating such business. The strict and literal application of such Rules is a sine qua non for the larger interest of public safety and road safety for the travelers on State or National Highways. The strict and literal application of such Rules is a sine qua non for the larger interest of public safety and road safety for the travelers on State or National Highways. Therefore, allowing any laxity on the application to these Rules or finding fault with the impugned orders just for the fall of hat as they say, would be defeating the very purpose of these Rules. 21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned notice/intimation of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, is unassailable, viewed from any angle and the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the State. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.