JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —The corrigendum dated 5th April, 2018, Annexure P-7, to the writ petition, has been sought to be quashed and set aside on the grounds, inter-alia, that the respondents could have not changed the location of L-2 vend allotted to the petitioner from Mcleodgang Main Square to Mcleodgang Temple Road unilaterally at such a stage when on its allotment it was made functional. Also that the location of L-2 vend, allotted to respondent No.5 at (Mcleodgang) Bhagsu Road, could have not been changed to Mcleodgang Main Square. Irrespective of the writ petition contested by both sets of respondents, i.e. respondents No.1 to 4-State on one side and the private respondent on the other, the controversy is narrow down, as during the course of arguments, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel, has stated at Bar that the private respondent is not interested in any change in the location of L-2 vend allotted to him at (Mcleodgang) Bhagsu Road to Mcleodgang Main Square and rightly so because in case the location of L-2 vend at Bhagsu Road is changed to Mcleodgang Main Square, it will be very difficult to both L-2 vends, i.e. the one allotted to the petitioner and the another to private respondent No.5 to survive there. Similarly, the private respondent is also not interested to shift its L-14 vend from Bhagsu Road to Mcleodgang Main Square. Even, L-14 vend allotted to the private respondent, will also remain at Mcleodgang Bhagsu Road and not to be shifted to Mcleodgang Main Square consequent upon the corrigendum, as stated again at Bar by Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel representing the private respondent. 2. Now, if coming to the claim of the petitioner that he has made the L-2 vend allotted to him functional at Mecleodgag Main Square, the same hardly carry any substance for the reason that he has not obtained the approval as required in terms of Conditions No.10.2 and 10.5(ii) of the announcements of excise allotments/renewals for the year 2018-2019. 3. It is apparent from the perusal of the above condition that an allottee shall have to arrange for a site and also the salesmen and get the same approved from the respective Additional/Joint/Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner of the Zone concerned. The petitioner, admittedly, has not sought the approval of the existing site where the vend presently is functioning. 3. It is apparent from the perusal of the above condition that an allottee shall have to arrange for a site and also the salesmen and get the same approved from the respective Additional/Joint/Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner of the Zone concerned. The petitioner, admittedly, has not sought the approval of the existing site where the vend presently is functioning. The vend though is still functioning there, however, pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition on 2nd May, 2018. 4. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to have sought the approval of the site from the respondentdepartment before making the same functional. Therefore, when no approval was obtained, there was no occasion to the respondents to have issued the corrigendum, Annexure P-7. The corrigendum, being uncalled for, is accordingly ordered to be quashed. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is ordered to be finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation, Himachal Pradesh, the second respondent, for approval of the site from where he intend to make his liquor vend functional, within three days from today. The Commissioner shall take a decision in the matter thereafter keeping in mind the viability, successful and fair operation of the vend by 26th May, 2018, positively. Till then, the interim order to continue. 6. The parties, through learned counsel representing them, if so advised, are directed to appear before the second respondent on 25th May, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, for compliance.