JUDGMENT AND ORDER : All these writ petitions being WP(C) No. 189 of 2017 [Sri Sudhir Debnath v. State of Tripura & Ors], WP(C). No. 218 of 2017 [Sri Parthasarathi Chakraborty v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 219 of 2017 [Sri Sanjay Roy v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 220 of 2017 [Sri Nilmani Sinha v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 221 of 2017 [Sri Subrata Saha v. State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C). No. 222 of 2017 [Smti. Dalia Nag v. State of Tripura & Ors.] and WP(C). No. 233 of 2017 [Sri Sujit Chakraborty v. State of Tripura & Ors.] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as in all these writ petitions the petitioners have embarked on common grounds for challenging the Notice Inviting Tender for settlement of retail vend of foreign liquor and country liquor for the financial year 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 for various locations throughout the State. 2. For purpose of reference, against each of the writ petitions the number of Notice Inviting Tender for settlement retail vend of foreign liquor and country liquor, shop, the serial number, location and Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) are furnished in a tabular form. It may be noticed that the Notice Inviting Tender appearing against a particular writ petition has been challenged by the concerned writ petitioner, the prospective bidder. The Writ petition No. Notice Inviting Tender No. The Issuing Authority Sl. Number for location Name of the Shops Locations Minimum Reserve Fees for 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 WP(C). No. 189 of 2017 No. F.IV-1 (156)/CEW/FL/CL/2017-2015/6628-66 The Collector of Excise, West Tripura District 28. Mohanpur F.L. Shop No. 2, Mohanpur Beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or Stage highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the Outer edge of the National or state highway Rs. 60,14,477,00/- WP(C). No. 218 of 2017 No. F.IV-1(156)/CEW/FL/CL/2017-2015/6628-66 The Collector of Excise, West Tripura District 15. Battala F.L. Shop No. 3 Within 100 meters from the existing location Rs. 64,70,244,00/- WP(C). No. 219 of 2017 No. 1240-54/F.I(44)/CEX/ KHW/2016-17 VOL-III The Collector of Excise, West Tripura District 2. Subhash Park FL Shop, Khowai Beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the outer edge of the National or state highway Rs. 1,08,36,634/- WP(C). 64,70,244,00/- WP(C). No. 219 of 2017 No. 1240-54/F.I(44)/CEX/ KHW/2016-17 VOL-III The Collector of Excise, West Tripura District 2. Subhash Park FL Shop, Khowai Beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the outer edge of the National or state highway Rs. 1,08,36,634/- WP(C). No. 220 of 2017 No. 1240-54/F.I(44)/CEX/KHW/2016-17 VOL-III The Collector of Excise, Dhalai District 14. Halahali FL shop, Kamalpur Beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the outer edge of the National or state highway Rs. 59,57,431,00/- WP(C). No. 221 of 2017 No. F.IV-1(156)/CEW/FL/CL/2017-2015/6628-66 The Collector of Excise, West Tripura District 15. Battala F.L. Shop No. 1 Within 100 meters from the existing location Rs. 64,70,244,00/- WP(C). No. 222 of 2017 No. 1240-54/F.I(44)/CEX/KHW/2016-17 VOL-III The Collector of Excise, Dhalai District 6 Halahali FL shop, No. 1, Kamalpur Beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the outer edge of the National or state highway Rs. 59,43,539,00/- WP(C). No. 233 of 2017 No. 1240-54/F.I(44)/CEX/KHW/2016-17 VOL-III The Collector of Excise, Dhalai District 6 Ambassa FL shop, No. 1, Ambassa Beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the outer edge of the National or state highway Rs. 78,17,522,00/- 3. There is no dispute that all the petitioners were the licensee for retail vending of foreign liquor for consumption off the site for the preceding financial year. It is also not in dispute that the said licenses were granted on the basis of the Settled Reserved Fee and on the other conditions as laid down in the licenses or as provided in the law. By this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents for incorporating two conditions which according to them are in contrast or in violation of Rule-26 and Rule 154 of Tripura Excise Rule 1990 as amended from time to time. 4. For purpose of reference, Rule 26 of the Tripura Excise Rule, 1990 as stood amended by the Tripura Excise (11th Amendment Rules 2017) would be referred in the latter part of this judgment. 4. For purpose of reference, Rule 26 of the Tripura Excise Rule, 1990 as stood amended by the Tripura Excise (11th Amendment Rules 2017) would be referred in the latter part of this judgment. By amendment in the Rule 26 of Tripura Excise Rule 1990, the first proviso and the second proviso were inserted by Tripura Excise (9th Amendment) Rules, 2015, notified in the Tripura Gazette vide F.I-5(3-EX/2014(HC) dated 30.01.2015, which were as under: “Provided that no shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible form a national or state highway, (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 meters of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along with highway. Provided further that, the existing licenses which have already been renewed shall continue until the term of the licenses expires, but not later than 31st March 2017”. 5. It would be apposite to refer that Rule 26 of Tripura Excise Rule, 1990 stands substantively unscathed even after the amendment. Rule 26, without the provisos as reproduced above, reads as under: “26. In granting licenses for new shop, and, as for as practicable, in granting licenses for established liquor sops, the Collector shall have regard to the following principles: (a) A liquor shop should not be inaccessible to consumers, but is should not be in such a situation as to obtrude itself on the 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 far public that person 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 neat neighbours object on grounds which, upon inquiry, appear to be sufficient and free from malice or ulterior motives. 6. It may be noted further that in this batch of writ petitions, no challenge has been projected to the mode and modalities as prescribed by Rule 29A or Rule 22 of the Tripura Excise Rules 1990 as amended from time to time. 6. It may be noted further that in this batch of writ petitions, no challenge has been projected to the mode and modalities as prescribed by Rule 29A or Rule 22 of the Tripura Excise Rules 1990 as amended from time to time. The further challenge to the impugned Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is structured on the provisions of Rule 154 of the said Rules. After the amendment as carried out by Tripura Excise (6th Amendment) Rules, 2007. Rule 154 of the said rules stood as under: “The fees for licenses for the retail vend of the following intoxicants shall be fixed by auction, subject to a reserved fee sanctioned in each case by the Excise Commissioner, and no sale shall be final unless confirmed by the State Government. (I) Country Liquor. (II) Foreign Liquor.” By way of amendment, Tripura Excise (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016 has incorporated that for settlement of the shops on Tender or Auction, the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) shall be notified by the Excise Commissioner with approval of the government for 3 (three) years i.e. 36 months adding an increase of 20% on the last accepted tender value, provided that if the last accepted tendered value was of the period of less than three years, then, in case of determination of Minimum Reserve Fees (MRF) for the current period, i.e. three years, the last tendered value of 1(one) day This ‘1(one) day’ in the provision as referred clearly appears to be a printer’s devil or the printing mistake. If it is literally considered, the entire provision would turn out to be meaningless. For harmonious and meaningful construction, the said one day has been considered as ‘one year.’ shall be considered first by adding 20% increase on it, which shall be multiplied by 3(three) years. Provided further that for floating of tender for less than three years, the Collector of Excise shall calculate Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) for that period proportionately on the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) notified by the Excise Commissioner. For purpose of this sub-clause, last Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) of the unsettled shop shall remain unchanged for fixing new MRF for the respective shop. For purpose of this sub-clause, last Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) of the unsettled shop shall remain unchanged for fixing new MRF for the respective shop. In case of settlement of a shop on tender or auction basis, the licence fee shall be fixed by the Excise Commissioner with the approval of the Government and the amount so fixed shall not be less than the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) of the particular shop. The Collector shall not be bound to accept the highest or any bid, he may exclude persons of notoriously bad character or who are reasonably suspected of having resorted to illicit practices and may refuse an bid deemed to be reckless or purely speculative. Provided further that the Collector may, in exceptional cases to be recorded by him in writing, with the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner, settle shops generally, or a particular shop by selection without auction or tender. In case of settlement of shops through tender method, tenderer shall deposit 20% of tendered value as security deposit in advance, alongwith his/her application in the form of Deposit-at-Call from State Bank of India or any Nationalized Bank or Tripura Gramin Bank or Tripura State Cooperative Bank. 7. The petitioners have asserted that the impugned NITs are in breach of the said Rules 26 and 154 of Tripura Excise Rules, 1990 as amended from time to time inasmuch as the Minimum Reserve Fee as prescribed for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 do not conform to the provisions of Rule-154 of the said rules. According to the petitioners, instead of fixing Minimum Reserve Fee by adding 20% over the last tender value, the respondents have added 20% over the last enhanced license fee and hence, it is illegal and unsustainable. That apart, the petitioners have submitted that as per Rule 26 of the said rules, no shop for sale of liquor shall be (i) visible form a national or state highway (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 meters of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway. According to the petitioners, the respondents while notifying the impugned NITs have imposed further restriction adding an additional clause i.e. the location of the liquor shop not only be beyond 500 meters from outer edge of the national or state highway but it shall also not exceed 700 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway. According to the petitioners, this restriction is beyond the scope of Rule 26 and as such it is illegal capricious and arbitrary. Hence, the impugned NITs cannot be acted upon and are liable to be quashed. The petitioners have asserted that the said action of the respondents is a flagrant infringement of Article 19 of the Constitution of India as well as of the provisions of Tripura Excise Rules. 8. Mr. A.K. Bhowmk, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is manifest on the face of the impugned NITs that the following provisions as incorporated in the NITs have grossly contravened Rule-26 and Rule 154 of the Tripura Excise Rule 1990, as amended from time to time. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has asserted that even though Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India speaks for reasonable restrictions but those conditions cannot be considered reasonable, particularly, imposition of restrictions of 700 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway. 9. The conditions in the NITs as challenged are as under: (i) Minimum Reserve Fee as provided in the column 4 in the table provided in the impugned NIT and as reproduced in the table above. (ii) The conditions in respect of the location which provides that beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway the shop can be set up. 10. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, appearing for the state respondents has referred to the provisions of Rule 154 of Tripura Excise Rules, 1990. According to him, the challenge in respect of the Minimum Reserve Fee is grossly misconstrued. 10. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, appearing for the state respondents has referred to the provisions of Rule 154 of Tripura Excise Rules, 1990. According to him, the challenge in respect of the Minimum Reserve Fee is grossly misconstrued. There is no ambiguity that with the last reserve fee that was paid against the particular shop 20% would be increased per year, meaning, for the next year the fee would be based on the last reserve fee plus 20% increase for having the MRF and for the entire tenure of license, the said rate would be multiplied by 3(three) years. The said method is fully in conformity with the amended provision of Rule 154 (2) as carried out by the Tripura Excise (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016 which provides that for settlement of the shops on Tender or Auction, the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) shall be notified by the Excise Commissioner with approval of the government for 3 (three) years i.e. 36 months adding an increase of 20% on the last accepted tender value. Provided that if the last accepted tender value was of the period of less than three years, then, in that case for determination of Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) for the current period i.e. three years, the last tendered value of 1(one) year [reading it meaningfully] shall be considered first by adding 20% increase on it and the rate shall be multiplied by for 3, for 3(three) years. Provided further that, for floating of tender for less than three years, the Collector of Excise shall calculate Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) for that period proportionately on the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) notified by the Excise Commissioner. 11. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has further contended that the condition of 700 meters from the outer edge from the national or the state highway is quite reasonable as the state has the exclusive privilege in the sale of liquor and no citizen has the fundamental right to carry on business of intoxicant in the manner as considered favourable. 11. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has further contended that the condition of 700 meters from the outer edge from the national or the state highway is quite reasonable as the state has the exclusive privilege in the sale of liquor and no citizen has the fundamental right to carry on business of intoxicant in the manner as considered favourable. Moreover, the said restriction is wholly in consonance with Rule-26 whereunder the state is saddled with certain duties such as, a liquor shop should not be in such a situation as to obtrude itself on the attention of the public and its locations 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. Within those parameters, the imposition of the restriction in respect of 700 meters cannot be held to be unreasonable. No bidder can be permitted to negotiate on such conditions. 12. As noted already, the questions those fall for consideration in these writ petitions are that (i) whether the MRF notified by the impugned NITs is contrary to the provision of Rule 154 (2) of the Tripura Excise Rules 1990 read with the Tripura Excise (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016? and (ii) whether the restriction of 700 meters from the outer edge from the national highway or the state highway can be imposed by the respondents within their authority as provided by Rule 26 of the Tripura Excise Rules, 1990 read with Tripura Excise (11th Amendment) Rules, 2017. The question relating to MRF entirely hinges on the interpretation of Rule 154 (2) of the Tripura Excise Rule, 1990 read with Tripura Excise (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016. The said rule has already been reproduced above which provides that for settlement of shops on tender or auction, the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) shall be notified for 3 (three) years i.e. 36 months adding an increase of 20% on the last accepted tender value. It has been further provided that if the last accepted tender value was on the arrear of less than 3 years, then, in case of determination of MRF for the current period of 3 years, the last tender value of 1 year shall be considered first, by adding 20% increase on it and that shall be multiplied by 3. It has been further provided that if the last accepted tender value was on the arrear of less than 3 years, then, in case of determination of MRF for the current period of 3 years, the last tender value of 1 year shall be considered first, by adding 20% increase on it and that shall be multiplied by 3. In the event the tender is floated for less than 3 years, the Collector of Excise shall calculate the MRF for that period proportionately on the MRF notified by the Excise Commissioner. It is noticed that the said method has been applied in the case of the impugned NITs for deciding the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF). For that reason, this Court would critically examine the determination of MRF in respect of Mohanpur FL Shop No. 2, Mohanpur, which is the subject matter of WP(C) No. 189 of 2017. That would illustrate the method of the other writ petitions. 13. In that case, the petitioner himself has stated that due to delay in the settlement of the tender, the petitioner was granted licence for a period of 9 months in the first year w.e.f. 01.06.2014 to 31.03.2015 with the license fee of Rs. 9,66,304/-. The said license of the petitioner was extended from time to time for further 2 years up to 31.03.2017 by way of enhancing the license fee at 20% in each of the next two years. The petitioner has contended that by the impugned NIT dated 16.02.2017 the respondents, instead of fixing Minimum Reserve Fee by adding 20% over the last accepted tender value, they have added 20% over the last enhanced license fee. 14. According to them, this has been done in violation of Rule 154(2) of Tripura Excise (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016. There is no controversy and it is apparent form the NIT dated 16.02.2017 that the licenses are proposed to be offered for retail vend of foreign liquor and country liquor shop for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 i.e. for consecutive 3 financial years. The MRF has been notified by the Excise Commissioner at Rs. 60,14,477/- on calculating the MRF for Mohanpur FL shop No. 2 in the following manner: Accepted value i.e. licence fees for Mohanpur FL Shop No. 2 released for 2016-2017 Rs. The MRF has been notified by the Excise Commissioner at Rs. 60,14,477/- on calculating the MRF for Mohanpur FL shop No. 2 in the following manner: Accepted value i.e. licence fees for Mohanpur FL Shop No. 2 released for 2016-2017 Rs. 16,70,688/- MRF for the said shop for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 @ 20% increase over accepted value of 2016-17 for 3 years i.e. 36 months. Rs. 16,70,688/- +20% of Rs. 16,70,688/- Rs. 16,70,688/-+3,34,137.60/- Rs. 20,04,825/- = 3 years Rs. 60,14,476,80/- Rs. 60,14,477/- 15. The solitary objection that has been raised in this regard in all these writ petitions is that the accepted tender value shall be what that was accepted in the first year, when the tender value (MRF) was settled by way of the tender method. 16. From a keen reading it would appear that though the provision is not unequivocally worded but the first proviso below Rule 154(2) of Tripura Excise (10th Amendment) Rules, 2016 has clarified the matter beyond any ambiguity when it provides that in case of determining of the Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) for the current period i.e. 3 years, “the last tender value of one year”* shall be considered first by adding 20% increase and that shall be multiplied by 3 for three years, meaning that the tender value of the last year of the licence would be the base and that would be increased by 20% first and for having the MRF for the current period of settlement [for three years] the said amount shall be multiplied by 3. This Court does not find any infirmity in the process for determining the MRF. This ground of challenge therefore falls through. 17. The other question relating to imposition of the further restriction going beyond the provisions of Rule 26 as brought into the Tripura Excise Rules, 1990 by the Tripura Excise (11th Amendment) Rules, 2017, whether is in conflict with Rule 26 which provides that no shop for the sale of liquor shall be visible from a national or state highway nor shall it be directly accessible from a national or state highway nor can it situate within a distance of 500 meters of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along with highway. But in the impugned tender process, an additional restriction has been imposed in some cases stating that shop should situate beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway but not exceeding 700 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway. The petitioners, not all, have challenged the said additional restriction for the shop to situate within 700 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway. 18. According to them, it is not only in contravention of the provision of Rule 26, but grossly unreasonable and an outcome of colourable excise of power. When this Court had confronted learned Advocate General to elucidate how the State has chosen “700 meters” form the outer edge of the national or state highway, he has drawn attention of this Court to a part of Part 9 of the reply filed by the respondents which reads as under: “The State Government also conducted a survey to ascertain the nos. of retail liquor vends within 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway of the State in consultation with Public Works Department keeping in view of direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. From the survey, it revealed that total 82 nos. retail vends (FL=56 nos. & CL=26 nos.) out of total 131 nos. (FL=96 nos. & CL=35 nos.) are located within 500 meters at the outer edge of the national or state highway of the State. As per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, India, the existing licenses which are within 500 meters from the outer edge of national or state highway and licenses which have already been renewed shall continue till 30.03.2017. Accordingly, while notifying MRF, the Commissioner of Excise with the approval of the Government has clearly mentioned in the Notification that, the proposed location for the shops which are coming within 500 meters form the outer edge of the national or state highway i.e. 82 shops should be beyond 500 meters from the outer edge of the national or state highway. It is to mentioned here that, each and every liquor vends are identified by the name of its location to cater the need of liquor of that particular location/area and therefore, the liquor shop should be located in the vicinity of that particular areas. It is to mentioned here that, each and every liquor vends are identified by the name of its location to cater the need of liquor of that particular location/area and therefore, the liquor shop should be located in the vicinity of that particular areas. If a shop is located no doubt beyond 500 meter but far away which may not be easily accessible for the area for which the shop was originally sanctioned by the Government. Therefore, the maximum limitation for the selection of the site is fixed beyond 500 meter from the outer edge but not exceeding 700 meter form the outer edge of the national or state highway. Moreover, by the above provision, the petitioner is not prejudiced any way.” 19. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1995) 1 SCC 547 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while addressing the very conundrum where the constitutional provision pertaining to conduction of business in liquor were considered it was observed, apart others, as is borne in the passages as extracted hereunder: “60. We may now summarise the law on the subject as culled from the aforesaid decisions. (a) The rights protected by Article 19(1) are not absolute but qualified. The qualifications are stated in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. The fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) to (g) are, therefore, to be read along with the said qualifications. Even the rights guaranteed under the Constitutions of the other civilized countries are not absolute but are read subject to the implied limitations on them. Those implied limitations are made explicit by clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of our Constitution. (b) The right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business does not extend to practising a profession or carrying on an occupation, trade or business which is inherently vicious and pernicious, and is condemned by all civilised societies. It does not entitle citizens to carry on trade or business in activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of the general public, i.e., res extra commercium, (outside commerce). There cannot be business in crime. It does not entitle citizens to carry on trade or business in activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of the general public, i.e., res extra commercium, (outside commerce). There cannot be business in crime. (c) Potable liquor as a beverage is an intoxicating and depressant drink which is dangerous and injurious to health and is, therefore, an article which is res extra commercium being inherently harmful, a citizen has, therefore, no fundamental right to do trade or business in liquor. Hence the trade or business in liquor can be completely prohibited. (d) Article 47 of the Constitution considers intoxicating drinks and drugs as injurious to health and impeding the raising of level of nutrition and the standard of living of the people and improvement of the public health. It, therefore, ordains the State to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks which obviously include liquor, except for medicinal purposes. Article 47 is one of the directive principles which is fundamental in the governance of the country. The State has, therefore, the power to completely prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, distribution and consumption of potable liquor as a beverage, both because it is inherently a dangerous article of consumption and also because of the directive principle contained in Article 47, except when it is used and consumed for medicinal purposes. (e) For the same reason, the State can create a monopoly either in itself or in the agency created by it for the manufacture, possession, sale and distribution of the liquor as a beverage and also sell the licences to the citizens for the said purpose by charging fees. This can be done under Article 19(6) or even otherwise. (f) For the same reason, again, the State can impose limitations and restrictions on the trade or business in potable liquor as a beverage which restrictions are in nature different from those imposed on the trade or business in legitimate activities and goods and articles which are res commercium. The restrictions and limitations on the trade or business in potable liquor can again be both under Article 19(6) or otherwise. The restrictions and limitations can extend to the State carrying on the trade or business itself to the exclusion of and elimination of others and/or to preserving to itself the right to. The restrictions and limitations on the trade or business in potable liquor can again be both under Article 19(6) or otherwise. The restrictions and limitations can extend to the State carrying on the trade or business itself to the exclusion of and elimination of others and/or to preserving to itself the right to. sell licences to do trade or business in the same, to others. (g) When the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to it cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. (h) The State can adopt any mode of selling the licences for trade or business with a view to maximize its revenue so long as the method adopted is not discriminatory. (i) The State can carry on trade or business in potable liquor notwithstanding that it is an intoxicating drink and Article 47 enjoins it to prohibit its consumption. When the State carries on such business, it does so to restrict and regulate production, supply and consumption of liquor which is also an aspect of reasonable restriction in the interest of general public. The State cannot on that account be said to be carrying on an illegitimate business. [Emphasis added] 20. Having regard to the legal position as enunciated in Krishna Kumar Narula Etc. v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1368 a Five Judge bench of the Apex Court has clearly enunciated that a citizen can have a right to deal liquor subject to reasonable restriction in the public interest allowed by Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. In Khoday (supra) the concept of res extra commercium came to be accepted and applied to the business of manufacture and trade of liquor. In Khoday (supra) the concept of res extra commercium came to be accepted and applied to the business of manufacture and trade of liquor. The restrictions that has been imposed by proviso to Rule 26 that no shop of the sale of liquor shall be visible from a national or state highway or directly accessible form a national of state highway and situated within a distance of 500 meter of outer edge of the national or the state highway or of a service lane along the highway has not been and cannot be challenged but the restrictions on the basis of the survey and general limitation as laid down in the Rule 26(1) that the shop must be within 700 meters of the outer edge of the national or state highway has been challenged on the ground that the said rule does not permit the respondents to impose the said restriction and the said restriction is therefore unreasonable and without competence. 21. The restriction as to the location of a liquor shop is not entirely governed by proviso to Rule 26. The restriction can emanate from the object and the conditions as laid down in Rule 26(1) of Tripura Excise Rules as amended from time to time. In view of the said legal position as to the limited right to dealing in liquor and the reasons for imposing the restriction of 700 meters as provided on the basis of the survey, this Court is unable to accept the contentions of the petitioners. Moreover, the method that has been followed cannot even be termed as discriminatory. Having held so, these writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. The respondents shall be at liberty to settle the shops in terms of the impugned NITs. There shall be no order as to costs.