JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of five appeals bearing LPAOW Nos. 112 and 113 of 2017 & 72, 73 and 74 of 2019, which arise out of common order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2017. 2. The brief facts and the prayer made in the writ petitions is summed up hereunder:- The appellants herein had filed two writ petitions bearing OWP Nos. 855 and 1052 of 2017 before this Court seeking following reliefs:- OWP No. 855/2017 “A. Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents no. 1 to 3 & 5-6 to shutdown the Bar and Wine shop situated on the Kirmachi Landhar road, State Highway which is illegal in terms of the Supreme Court Judgment The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary Home, Prohibition & Excise Dept. & Ors. Versus K. Balu and Anr. B. Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents no. 5 to 6 to dismantle the illegal construction done by the respondent no. 9 and 10 which is contrary to the provisions of The Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, 1950. C. Mandamus:- Declaring the sale of liquor by respondents no. 9 and 10 is illegal and bad in law in terms of Supreme Court Judgment and Fundamental Rights enshrined in our constitution.” OWP No. 1052/2017 “A. Certiorari:- Quashing the communication no. DECEJ/Exc/2366-71 dated 13-06-2017 to the extent it provides that the M/s Amar Singh Wine Shop, Kainth Gali (owner respondent no. 9) and M/s Thakur Bar, Panchari (owner respondent no. 10) are not situated on the Highway (State Highway) and which is contrary to the SRO 106 of 1969, dated 21st Feb 1969 which provides Kirmachi-Landar Road is State Highway. B. Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents no. 5 to 9 not to act upon the communication no.DECEJ/ Exc/2366-71 dated 13.06.2017 and not to allow the respondent no. 10 and 11 to run the Wine Shop and bar which is illegal from its inception. The private respondents herein had also filed three writ petitions against the official respondents, bearing OWP Nos. B. Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents no. 5 to 9 not to act upon the communication no.DECEJ/ Exc/2366-71 dated 13.06.2017 and not to allow the respondent no. 10 and 11 to run the Wine Shop and bar which is illegal from its inception. The private respondents herein had also filed three writ petitions against the official respondents, bearing OWP Nos. 792, 811 and 993 of 2017, seeking following reliefs:- OWP No. 792/2017 “(a) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents No. 3 to 6 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner for carrying out his business/trade under the name and style of M/S Thakur Bar and Restaurant, Panchari, District Udhampur in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Licence No. 135/KEL-4 dated 01.02.2008, which has been renewed from time to time latest renewal ordered vide Order No. 541 of 2017 dated 27.03.2017 for the year 2017-18 by respondent No.2. (b) Certiorari, seeking to quash Communication bearing No. 32/TP/OQ dated 22.04.2017 addressed by respondent No. 4 to respondent No.3.” “(a) Certiorari seeking quashment of the communication bearing No. 32/TP/OQ dated 22.04.2017 addressed by Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent No.3. (b) Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to 6 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner for carrying out his business/trade under the name and style of M/S Amar Singh Wine Shop, Kainth Gali, Tehsil Panchari, Udhampur in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Licence No. 304-JKEL-2.” “(a) Certiorari seeking to quash Order no. 17/ARA/DCU dated 16th June, 2017 passed by Respondent No.3. (b) Mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent No.4 to get the order dated 26th May, 2017 passed in OWP No. 792/2017 implemented through Respondent No. 5 and 6 and report compliance before this Hon’ble Court so that the petitioner is allowed to carry out his business/trade under the name & style of M/s Thakur Bar & Restaurant, Panchari District Udhampur in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Licence No. 135/JKEL-4 dated 1st February, 2004, granted by the Respondent No.2.” 3. The writ petitions filed by the appellants herein bearing OWP Nos. 855 and 1052 of 2017 were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge, whereas the writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein, bearing OWP Nos. 792, 811 and 993 of 2017 were allowed, by a common order. The appellants were not party to the writ petitions filed by the private respondents. 855 and 1052 of 2017 were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge, whereas the writ petitions filed by the private respondents herein, bearing OWP Nos. 792, 811 and 993 of 2017 were allowed, by a common order. The appellants were not party to the writ petitions filed by the private respondents. Hence, they sought permission of this Court to file appeal against the order passed in OWP Nos. 792, 811 and 993 of 2017. The permission having been granted by this Court, order of the learned Single Judge, passed in all the five writ petitions, has been impugned in the bunch of appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu and another, (2017) 2 SCC 281 had dealt with the issue regarding location of the liquor vends on National and State Highways across the country, which is cause of increase in road accidents. While dealing with the issues, certain directions were given which uniformly apply throughout the country. Important one, relevant for the case in hand is, that no shop for sale of liquor shall be located within 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway. In the case in hand, the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have been granted licenses for running liquor shops and a Bar within 500 metres of the State Highway. To buttress his arguments that respondent Nos. 10 and 11 had their business establishments within 500 metres of the State Highway, reference was made to the response given by the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division, Udhampur vide letter dated 07.07.2017, stating that roads namely Supply Morh to Krimchi and from Krimchi to Landher are State Highways as per J&K Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, Svt. 2007, (for short ‘the Development Act’). The aforesaid Development Act imposes restrictions on construction within specified limits of the State Highways. In the case in hand the same is 30 feet. 5. It was further argued that the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have been illegally granted licenses and they had raised construction of their business premises in violation of the provisions of the Development Act. This is one of the three requisites to be fulfilled before any license could be granted for running a liquor shop or a bar. 5. It was further argued that the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have been illegally granted licenses and they had raised construction of their business premises in violation of the provisions of the Development Act. This is one of the three requisites to be fulfilled before any license could be granted for running a liquor shop or a bar. SRO 106 dated 21.06.1969 mentions in the schedule attached to the Development Act, different roads which have been notified as State Highways. The appellants in the cases in hand, who are residents of the area, especially the women folk had raised the issue regarding opening of liquor shops in the area, which was creating law and order problem. An incident of rape of two minor girls had taken place on 02.04.2017 by some persons who had consumed liquor in open. There was lot of protest. Even in the report dated 22.04.2017 submitted by Tehsildar to the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, it was stated that liquor shops were the cause of the incident. Fundamental rights of the residents of the area will override individual right of any person to carry on business. In any case, there is no right to trade in liquor as it is a privilege which is granted by the State and same can be withdrawn at any time. The State should not be insensitive to the difficulties being faced by the residents of the area, merely considering the revenues to be generated. Because of aforesaid liquor vend and Bar, the life of the residents had become hell. Liquor is being consumed in open, which has made it impossible for the women and children to move around freely. There is always apprehension of any untoward incident. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that right to business and profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India will give way to right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to carry on trade in liquor is not a fundamental right. Before any licensee applies for grant of license for carrying on the trade of liquor, he has to seek permission for construction of the building or has to produce the certificate showing that the building has been constructed in compliance to the Development Act. In case there is any violation the license cannot be granted. Before any licensee applies for grant of license for carrying on the trade of liquor, he has to seek permission for construction of the building or has to produce the certificate showing that the building has been constructed in compliance to the Development Act. In case there is any violation the license cannot be granted. He further submitted that there is no stand of the official respondents on record stating as to whether any such permission was sought and granted to respondents-licensees. Section 49 of the Excise Act deals with the situation where any license granted can be cancelled on account of various misconduct specified therein. 7. Whether the road on which licenses were granted, is State Highway or not, has to be considered in terms of the Central Road Funds (State Roads), Rules, 2014. The State is getting funds for maintenance of road in question from the Central Government, claiming the same to be a State Highway. The area in question does not fall within any municipal limits. Hence, the relaxation given for location of the liquor vends by Hon’ble the Supreme Court will not apply in the case in hand. 8. Section 47 of the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act Svt. 1958 provides that any liquor vend can be closed in case there is danger to the public peace. In the case in hand, the incident was such that not only that the liquor vend/bar are required to be closed but in future as well no license should be granted in that area. Section 49 of the Excise Act was referred to argue that even for violation of conditions of licence, action can be taken against the licensee. In the case in hand there are many violations but no action is being taken against respondent Nos. 10 and 11, as they are hand-in-glove with the officials. He further referred to Rule 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir liquor License and Sale Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), which provides for the procedure to be followed for the purpose of grant of license. Objections are required to be sought. Even the residents of the area are also to be informed to enable them to raise objections, if any. But no such procedure was followed when the permission was granted. 9. Objections are required to be sought. Even the residents of the area are also to be informed to enable them to raise objections, if any. But no such procedure was followed when the permission was granted. 9. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no road in the State has been declared as State Highway in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Highways Act, Svt. 2007 (for short ‘the Highways Act’). It is only the aforesaid Act under which any road could be declared a State Highway. The Development Act has nothing to do with declaration of State Highway. It is related only with restrictions on construction to be raised within certain specific limits of a road, which may be notified there under. SRO 106 of 1969 only notifies those roads and prescribes the restrictions. Merely because in the aforesaid SRO the word, ‘State Highway’ has been used, will not come in aid of the appellants once the Highways Act, the legislation dealing with the State Highways does not notify any of the road in the State to be a State Highway. It was further submitted that after the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. Balu’s case (supra), a Committee was constituted which submitted its report, opining that there was no State Highway in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 10. It was further submitted that in case there is any violation of the Development Act, there are remedies available therein. Against any action by the authorities against the violators, there is remedy of appeal available to the aggrieved party. Reference was made to the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr, (2018) 13 SCC 133 , further clarifying the order initially passed in K. Balu’s case (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that the restrictions imposed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court will not apply on the portions of National/State Highways within the municipal limits. In the case in hand, the liquor vends and Bars are located within the Municipal limits. In support of the argument that under the Development Act the State is not competent to declare any road as Highway, reliance was placed on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Kripa Ram vs. Deputy Commissioner and another, (1979) JKLR, 245. 11. Mr. In support of the argument that under the Development Act the State is not competent to declare any road as Highway, reliance was placed on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Kripa Ram vs. Deputy Commissioner and another, (1979) JKLR, 245. 11. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Learned counsel for the respondents-licensees further submitted that there is no pleading in the writ petition regarding violation of Rule 30 of the Rules. In fact, when the liquor vends and Bar were opened, No Objection Certificates were submitted and the requirements under Rule 30 of the Rules were fully complied with. In any case, if any violation is sought to be alleged, there is authority prescribed under the Development Act, who can take action only after affording opportunity of hearing to a defaulter. The issues cannot be raised at the first instance before this Court. In case any order is passed against them, they have a right to file appeal as well. That procedure cannot be scuttled. The road in question falls in a rural area where Panchayat is there and no Municipal Committee. Section 3 of the Development Act provides that the restrictions which are to be imposed can be prescribed by the Chief Engineer. SRO 106 dated 21.02.1969, has been relied upon by the appellants. In fact there was amendment in Section 3 of the Development Act in the year 1970 whereby the Chief Engineer was prescribed as competent authority as against the State Government earlier. SRO 106 dated 21.02.1969, which was issued by the State Government, will not have any force now rather against that, SRO 757 of 1972 dated 24.10.1972 will be applicable which was notified by the competent authority i.e. Chief Engineer. In the aforesaid notification the road in question is not part of the schedule. 12. The learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The issues have been considered thread bare. In case the residents of the area raise any objection to opening of any liquor vend, the same is always considered and can even now be considered. He further submitted that if there is any violation of the Development Act, the same can also be considered. The issues cannot be gone into at the very first stage by this Court as there is procedure prescribed for taking any action for violation thereof. He further submitted that if there is any violation of the Development Act, the same can also be considered. The issues cannot be gone into at the very first stage by this Court as there is procedure prescribed for taking any action for violation thereof. The aggrieved person has a right to file appeal as well. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 14. Five intra-court appeals are being dealt with by this common judgment. Two writ petitions were filed by the inhabitants of the village raising issue regarding opening of liquor vend and bar; whereas three were filed by the liquor vend and bar licensees raising issue that they are not being permitted to carry on their business. The writ petitions filed by the inhabitants were dismissed, whereas those by the licensees were allowed. The inhabitants of the village have filed the present five appeals before this court. Law Laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court Regarding Opening of Liquor Vends on Highways 15. Matter was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. Balu and Another’s case (supra). Considering the official figures of road accidents especially with drunken driving on the National and State Highways, following directions were issued: “The issue which the Court addressed was the presence of liquor vends on National and State highways across the country. Official figures of road accidents, with their attendant fatalities and injuries provided the backdrop for the intervention of this Court. This Court adverted to the consistent policy of the Union Government to curb drunken driving and, as an incident of the policy, to remove liquor vends on national highways. The judgment of this Court concludes that there is no justification to allow liquor vends on state highways (while prohibiting them on national highways) having due regard to drunken driving being one of the significant causes of road accidents in India. Hence, by the judgment of this Court, the following directions have been issued for stopping the grant of licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways and over a distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of the highway or a service lane alongside. 1 April 2017 is fixed as the date for phasing out existing licences. 1 April 2017 is fixed as the date for phasing out existing licences. The directions are set-out below: (i) All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways; (ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority; (iii) The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later than 1 April 2017; (iv) All signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on national and state highways; (v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway. (vi) All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the state revenue and home departments. Responsibility shall be assigned inter alia to District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly monitored by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken. (vii) These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution.” 16. In subsequent order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case on March 31, 2017, following directions were given: “We accordingly direct that the following paragraph shall be inserted, after direction (v) in paragraph 24 of the operative directions of this Court in the judgment dated 15 December 2016 namely: “In the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a population of 20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand reduced to 220 metres”. In our view, the ends of justice would be met by issuing the following direction in continuation of direction (iii) in paragraph 24 of the judgment of this Court: “In the case of those licences for the sale of liquor which have been renewed prior to 15 December 2016 and the excise year of the concerned state is to end on a date falling on or after 1 April 2017, the existing licence shall continue until the term of the licence expires but in any event not later than 30 September 2017”. Similarly, the State of Meghalaya has placed before this Court peculiar conditions prevailing in the State as a result of the hilly terrain. We are of the view that insofar as the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim are concerned, it would suffice if the two states are exempted only from the application of the 500 metre distance requirement provided in paragraph 24(v)(iii) of the judgment of this Court on 15 December 2016.” 17. Thereafter, in Arrive Safe Society’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has given the following clarification: “7. The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated 15 December 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs, before the Court.” 18. The matter was again considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary and Ors. v. K. Balu and Anr., reported as (2018) 3 SCC 336 , wherein the following directions were issued: “8. Having regard to these directions, we are of the view that the state governments would not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has been laid down by this Court in the order dated 11 July 2017 in Arrive Safe Society (supra) should also apply to areas covered by local self- governing bodies and statutory development authorities. Having regard to these directions, we are of the view that the state governments would not be precluded from determining whether the principle which has been laid down by this Court in the order dated 11 July 2017 in Arrive Safe Society (supra) should also apply to areas covered by local self- governing bodies and statutory development authorities. We are inclined to allow the state governments to make this determination since it is a question of fact as to whether an area covered by a local self-governing body is proximate to a municipal agglomeration or is sufficiently developed as to warrant the application of the same principle. In deciding as to whether the principle which has been set down in the order dated 11 July 2017 should be extended to a local self-governing body (or statutory development authority) the state governments would take recourse to all relevant circumstances including the nature and extent of development in the area and the object underlying the direction prohibiting the sale of liquor on national and the state highways. The use of the expression ‘municipal areas’ in the order dated 11 July 2017 does not prevent the state governments from making that determination and from taking appropriate decisions consistent with the object of the orders passed by this Court. We leave it open to individual licensees to submit their representations to the competent authorities in the state governments if they are so advised upon which appropriate decisions may be taken by the state governments. We have issued this general direction to obviate both litigation before the High Courts and repeated recourse to applications to this Court.” Regarding Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, 2007 19. The aforesaid Act provides that no building shall be erected alongside any road maintained by the Public Works or any other department within such distance from the centre of the road as may be specified by the general or special order of the Chief Engineer. The powers have been conferred on the Chief Engineer even to demolish any building erected in violation of the provisions of the Act. Any person aggrieved against the order of the Chief Engineer has a right to file appeal to the Minister In-charge of the Public Works Department, whose decision is final. 20. The aforesaid Act does not in any way deals with declaration of any road as a national or the state highway. Any person aggrieved against the order of the Chief Engineer has a right to file appeal to the Minister In-charge of the Public Works Department, whose decision is final. 20. The aforesaid Act does not in any way deals with declaration of any road as a national or the state highway. Merely, because in a notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the aforesaid Act, in the Schedule some headings have been given as National Highways, State Highways or Major District Roads will not, ipso facto, means that those roads are to be treated as National Highways or the State Highways. Regarding National Highways and State Highways 21. National Highways are declared under the National Highways Act, 1956. Section 2 thereof provides that the highways specified in the Schedule attached to the Act shall be the national highways. The highways mentioned in the Schedule can be added or deleted. 22. The ‘Government road or place’ in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is declared in terms of the J&K Highways Act, Svt. 2007. The definition of ‘Government road or place’ as given in Section 2 thereof is extracted below: “2. ‘Government road or place’ means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, in charge of or maintained by the Government and notified by it as such road or place.” Preamble of the aforesaid Act suggests that the Act was enacted for regulation of traffic on Government roads and places in the State. The word ‘State Highway’ is not even defined in the aforesaid Act. 23. Arguments are sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellants that Supply Morh to Krimchi and from Krimchi to Landher have been declared as State Highways under the Development Act. Hence, the restrictions as imposed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. Balu’s case (supra) regarding distance for location of liquor vend would be applicable for the same. In support, reference was made to Communication of Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Udhampur dated 07.07.2017, stating that aforesaid two roads are State Highways as per the Development Act. However, the argument is fallacious for the reason that under the Development Act, there is no jurisdiction vested with the authorities to declare any road as a National Highway or the State Highway. However, the argument is fallacious for the reason that under the Development Act, there is no jurisdiction vested with the authorities to declare any road as a National Highway or the State Highway. The scope of the Development Act is merely to restrict construction within specified distance from the centre of the road on certain roads as notified in the Schedule thereto. Merely, because the headings have been used as ‘National Highways, State Highways or Other Major District roads’ will not mean that those roads are to be treated as National Highways as there is independent enactment for declaration of any highway as National Highway or the State Highway. J&K Excise Act, Svt. 1958 & Rules Framed There Under 24. Section 47 of the J&K Excise Act, Svt. 1958 (1901 A.D.) enables the Deputy Commissioner to close any shop for the sake of public peace where liquor or any intoxicating drug is sold, for preservation of public peace, for such period as may be required. 25. Rule 30 of the J&K Liquor License and Sale Rules, 1984 provides for procedure for grant of license for retail vend of liquor on and off the premises. The same is extracted below: “30. Procedure to be followed and matters to be ascertained before any license is granted for the retail vend of liquor, for consumption on the premises and off the premises in case of fixed fee leviable licenses. 1. When it is proposed to grant a licence for the retail vend of liquor for consumption on/off any premises, which were not licensed in the preceding year, the Deputy Excise Commissioner of the Province shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the opinion of persons, who reside or have property in the neighbourhood and are likely to be affected by the proposal. 2. The Deputy Excise Commissioner shall cause a notice posted of the proposal at or near the site proposed for the new licence. 3. If the proposed premises are in a municipal area or a town area, or notified area, the Deputy Excise Commissioner shall lay the proposal, in writing before the committee of the Municipality, Town area or Notified area. 4. The Deputy Excise Commissioner shall also ask for the opinion of the District Magistrate. 5. 3. If the proposed premises are in a municipal area or a town area, or notified area, the Deputy Excise Commissioner shall lay the proposal, in writing before the committee of the Municipality, Town area or Notified area. 4. The Deputy Excise Commissioner shall also ask for the opinion of the District Magistrate. 5. If the site of the proposed licence is near a Railway Station, educational institution, hospital area or any large factory, mill or workshop, the Deputy Excise Commissioner shall ask for the opinion of the Railway, educational or hospital authorities or commercial firms concerned. 6. If any objection is preferred to the proposal within two months from the date of the notice and reference, referred to in sub-rule (2) of this rule, the Deputy Excise Commissioner or a gazetted officer deputed by him shall enquire into it. The inquiry shall, if possible, be made on the spot. If it is not possible to make an inquiry on the spot, an inquiry shall be made in a formal proceeding at which evidence tendered for or against the proposal shall be recorded. The date and place of the inquiry shall be published in the notice prescribed above. 7. The final report, together with the opinion of the Commissioner of the Local Bodies concerned and the District Magistrate (provided this opinion is furnished within two months [and in respect of licence JKEL-4B within two weeks] from the date of the reference mentioned in sub-rules (3) and (4) of this rule, shall be forwarded by the Deputy Excise Commissioner to the Excise Commissioner. 8. Pending completion of the procedure, here-in-above, the Excise Commissioner, may if the situation so warrants in the interest of Government revenue, grant a temporary licence for retail vending of liquor at a premises, previously notified by the department, for a period not exceeding four months, to be followed either by grant of a regular licence, licence under the rules on completion of the procedure or termination of the temporary licence in the event of non-completion of the procedure.” 26. Besides this, Section 49 of the Excise Act also provides that for violations specified therein action can be taken against a licensee. Besides this, Section 49 of the Excise Act also provides that for violations specified therein action can be taken against a licensee. The aforesaid provisions provide that before any licence is granted for any new place, views of the persons who reside or have property in the neighbourhood and are likely to be effected by the proposal is taken. Procedure for the purpose is prescribed. 27. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the residents of the area was that no such opinion was sought from the residents of the area. In fact, with the sale of liquor, the crime has increased. This was the reason that the objection was raised. 28. Whereas, on the other hand, the stand of the licensees was that due process was followed. 29. At this stage, this Court would not like to go into this aspect as to whether procedure at that stage was followed or not. The residents of the area shall be permitted to raise this issue before the Competent Authority who shall consider and take a decision thereon. This was even the stand taken by learned counsel for the State. 30. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the licenses have been granted to the private respondents in the buildings which have been erected in violation of the Development Act is concerned, though the stand taken by the learned counsel representing them was that there was no violation. However, still it was argued that without following due process of law as envisaged in the Development Act, they cannot be directed to close their bar/vend. In case any action is taken against them, they have a remedy of appeal as well. The argument is meritorious. In case, the appellants feel that any construction by the private respondents, which is being used for liquor vend or bar, has been raised in violations of provisions of the Development Act, they shall be at liberty to bring it to the notice of the competent authority for taking appropriate action in terms of the provisions thereof. Needless to add after due opportunity of hearing to the affected party. 31. In case, the private respondents are violating any of the terms for grant of license for liquor vends/bars, there is complete procedure prescribed under the Excise Act and the Excise Policy for taking action against such person. Needless to add after due opportunity of hearing to the affected party. 31. In case, the private respondents are violating any of the terms for grant of license for liquor vends/bars, there is complete procedure prescribed under the Excise Act and the Excise Policy for taking action against such person. This Court, at the first instance, would not like to entertain that issue as there is complete procedure in the Excise Act and the Policy framed there under with remedies to the aggrieved party. 32. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of.