JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 823 of 2024, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner in the Writ Petition was that, on 21.02.2024 the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules, 2024-25 were notified by the State Government, and, under Rule 19, the procedure for grant of wholesale license for sale of overseas liquor [FL-2(O)] is provided. 3. The appellant-writ petitioner applied for wholesale license for sale of overseas liquor, i.e. FL-2(O), under Rule 19 of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules 2024-25, and was granted the same for the financial year 2024-25 by respondent no. 2, vide letter dated 14.03.2024. Respondent no. 3 was also granted the same license, i.e. FL-2(O) for the financial year 2024-25. The appellant-writ petitioner had challenged the issuance of the said license to respondent no. 3, on the ground that ihe does not meet the condition of eligibility, as mentioned in Clause 19.1(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules, 2024-25, as he does not possess the relevant experience of two years in the business of BWFL-2S (Bonded Warehouse of Foreign Liquor) in the State of Uttarakhand. 4. The issue before the learned Single Judge was, “whether experience of dealing in wholesale imported liquor business earned by a person in other State has to be ignored while considering his eligibility in terms of Clause 19.1(b) of the Excise Rules”. Respondent no. 3 is having BIO (bottled in overseas) wholesale license issued by the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh, under the Import of Overseas Foreign Liquor Rules, 2003, and he has experience of more than two years in dealing with imported liquor business. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition observed that “the interpretation given by the petitioner to clause 19.1(b) of the Rules is not correct. The said rule was inserted to ensure that the person applying for FL-2(O) license should have experience of wholesale business in overseas imported liquor including beer, wine, RTD etc. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition observed that “the interpretation given by the petitioner to clause 19.1(b) of the Rules is not correct. The said rule was inserted to ensure that the person applying for FL-2(O) license should have experience of wholesale business in overseas imported liquor including beer, wine, RTD etc. for a minimum period of two years and it nowhere provides that such experience has to be earned within State of Uttarakhand alone.” The learned Single Judge further observed that “State Government has formulated the policy of granting FL-2(O) license to experienced persons with the object of augmenting revenue. More revenue would be generated when there are more competitors for FL-2(O) license, therefore, the State Government would not have intended to restrict competition by excluding persons having experience in other States and limiting the field of eligibility only to those who have experience of dealing with the business within State of Uttarakhand only. Such condition, if added, would be counter-productive and would defeat the object of formulating the policy.” 5. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner is that respondent no. 3 is having the BIO license issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government, and, in this backdrop, he does not fulfill the criteria of Clause 19.1(b) of the Rules. He further states that, merely having FL-2(O) license, as per Clause 19.1(a), will not make respondent no. 3 eligible as per the Excise Policy for the year 2024-25 for grant of license. 6. On 01.07.2024, when this case was taken up, counsel for the private respondent no. 3 had handed over a copy of the license for sale of overseas liquor to the counsel for the State, which had been issued by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Department. These licenses showed that they had been given to respondent no. 3, and he may sell imported liquor to authorized persons within the State, on payment of permit fee, and he has also to give details of the liquor, which was imported into and exported out of the State. A direction was given to the State to file a better supplementary affidavit of a senior officer, explaining the object of giving the license – Annexure No.3 and Annexure No. 5. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2024, an affidavit has been filed by Prashant Kumar Arya, Excise Commissioner, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun on 30.07.2024. A direction was given to the State to file a better supplementary affidavit of a senior officer, explaining the object of giving the license – Annexure No.3 and Annexure No. 5. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2024, an affidavit has been filed by Prashant Kumar Arya, Excise Commissioner, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun on 30.07.2024. In this affidavit, the State has placed on record the Rules, Notifications and Orders as C.A.-1, with regard to Import of Overseas Foreign Liquor in Scheduled Areas in Uttaranchal. As per Rule 3 of these Rules, at Page No. 15 of this affidavit, there is a provision, which states that a license vendor, desiring to import overseas foreign liquor, shall make an application personally, or through his agent, to the Collector, or the District Excise Officer, or the Excise Inspector. This application has to be given in Form F.L.-33. For the first time in the Excise Policy dated 21.02.2024, a particular license for the overseas foreign liquor was prescribed, i.e. FL-2(O). As per the Excise Policy for the year 2024-25, provisions have been made, with respect to wholesale of overseas foreign liquor, and the relevant clause is Clause 19.1(a) and Clause 19.1(b). The said clauses are reproduced hereunder : “Wholesale sale of foreign liquor products imported from overseas : 19.1 Foreign liquor manufacturers outside India or their authorized dealers or such entity which has legal rights to sell the respective brand in India, will be able to sell foreign liquor/ beer/ wine/ scotch/ RTD etc. brands in Uttarakhand through FL-2(O), for which the following arrangement will be in place : a) In view of revenue protection, retail liquor shop licenses may be given excise wholesale license FL-2(O) for supply of foreign made liquor/ beer/ wine/ RTD imported overseas. b) There will be a provision to give FL-2(O) to such institution/ unit in the State of Uttarakhand, which has experience of trading foreign made liquor/ beer/ wine/ RTD imported overseas in BWFL-(2S) in this fields for at least last two years.” 8. As per the above-said Rules, the mandatory condition is that, to get a FL-2(O) license, the unit/ company should have two years’ experience in B.W.F.L.-2(S), which is a license given to a company trading in foreign made liquor/ beer/ wine/ RTD imported overseas. 9. A copy of the Foreign Liquor Bonded Warehouse Rules is Annexure C.A.-2, attached with this affidavit. As per the above-said Rules, the mandatory condition is that, to get a FL-2(O) license, the unit/ company should have two years’ experience in B.W.F.L.-2(S), which is a license given to a company trading in foreign made liquor/ beer/ wine/ RTD imported overseas. 9. A copy of the Foreign Liquor Bonded Warehouse Rules is Annexure C.A.-2, attached with this affidavit. For grant of B.W.F.L.-2 license, the relevant Rule is Rule 4(i), which reads as under : “4(i) The application for the grant of licence shall be made in writing in form B.W.F.L.-1 and the licence shall be granted, in Form B.W.F.L.-2 and B.W.F.L.-2B. The Excise Commissioner may grant the licence in B.W.F.L.-2 subject to deposit of The security of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) for the fulfilment of all the conditions of licence, and execution of a bond in Form B.W.F.L.-3 for such amount as may be fixed by Excise Commissioner.” 10. It is further clarified in paragraph no. 12 of this affidavit that the Foreign Liquor Bonded Warehouse Rules (Annexure No. C.A.-2) are to be read in conjunction and conformity with the Excise Policy promulgated on 21.02.2024. As per the Excise Policy, and the Rules, a person having a B.W.F.L.-2 license for a period of two years, or the person, who is having two years’ experience in the said field - meaning thereby, if a license and any other nomenclature suggest an experience of two years in the field of overseas foreign liquor, the said person is also eligible to be granted FL-2(O) license. 11. In paragraph no. 14 of this affidavit, it is further stated that the Import of Overseas Foreign Liquor Rules U.P., 2003, and the Import of Overseas and Scheduled Areas Uttaranchal Rules are substantially the same. The BIO license is a superior license vis-à-vis B.W.F.L.-2 license, as it is with regard to import of overseas foreign liquor in bottles and cans, while B.W.F.L.-2(S) is a license for bonded warehouse, and that too foreign liquor. Respondent no. 3 is having due and proper experience in dealing with overseas foreign liquor. The license of respondent no. 3 has been placed on record as Annexure No. C.A.-3 to this affidavit. Respondent no. 3 is having due and proper experience in dealing with overseas foreign liquor. The license of respondent no. 3 has been placed on record as Annexure No. C.A.-3 to this affidavit. The main purpose of FL-2(O) license in the Excise Policy, 2024 is not to monopolize some individual person/ institution/ unit for the purpose of overseas liquor business, but, as a matter of fact, as per Clause 19.1, the purpose is to regulate the wholesale of overseas liquor products. This is being done so that in the segment of overseas liquor, more revenue could be generated, and consumers could be provided safe and high quality overseas liquor. 12. In paragraph no. 22 of this affidavit, it is further clarified that the word used in Clause 19.1(b) is ^^{ks=** , which means in the field of business, and it does not lay down any geographical limit in the field of business of overseas liquor. FL-2(O) license has been granted to both the appellant-writ petitioner and respondent no. 3 as per Rule 19.1(a) & (b), as both of them were having experience of two years in overseas liquor business. 13. In paragraph no. 23 of this affidavit, it has further been clarified that respondent no. 3 has a BIO (bottled in overseas) license, and is having more than two years’ experience in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the functioning of BIO and B.W.F.L.-2(S) license is similar. 14. As per the counter affidavit filed by the State, i.e. by the Excise Commissioner, Dehradun, it has been clearly clarified that the BIO license given to respondent no. 3 met with the criteria of the Excise Policy, i.e. Clauses 19.1(a) & (b), as the words used in that clause is that the experience should be in the field of foreign made liquor, and it does not specify any geographical limit. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pittu Raja Reddy vs. State of Odisha&Ors(W.P. (C) No. 21250 of 2022, decided on 01.02.2024), which deals with shifting of a liquor vend from one place to another place, in which permission was granted for shifting of a country liquor shop from its existing site to a new site by relaxing the restricted Clause-4.2.14(iv) of the Odisha Excise Policy for the year 2022-23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining an issue where license was granted for country liquor shop for the year 2022-23 and the shop was opened in District Khordha. The license was renewed for the year 2022-23. Thereafter, the license-holder made an application for shifting of his shop and, on shifting of the liquor shop, another license-holder filed objections. The Collector had reported that there was a prohibition in the Excise Policy for proposal of shifting a liquor shop from one location to another. Despite the above said objection, the Commissioner, Odisha recommended the matter to the Government and the Government gave approval by relaxing Clause-4.2.14(iv) of the Odisha Excise Policy for the year 2022-23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the above said Clause, held that the orders for approving shifting of the liquor shop were not sustainable by giving the benefit of relaxation to Clause 4.2.14(iv) of the Odisha Excise Policy for the year 2022-23. The important thing, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in this judgment, is that for Excise Policy for the year 2022-23, even if the benefit of relaxation was given for shifting of the liquor shop it was not for the whole year, it was for the remaining period in which the application for shifting had been made. Even then the Supreme Court held that this foreign liquor and the respondents have further clarified that the license of BIO license is a superior license vis-à-vis BWFL-2(S) license, as it is with regard to import of overseas foreign liquor in bottles and cans, while BWFL-2(S) is a license for bonded warehouse, and that too foreign liquor. This is not a case where any benefit of relaxation has been given to respondent No.3in accepting his BIO license. It has further been observed in the above paragraphs that as per Clause 19.1(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules, 2024-25, there was no jurisdictional or geographical limitation for participation for grant of license for wholesale of overseas liquor. The appellant-writ petitioner has not referred to any Company’s name, which was having BIO license and has been rejected for consideration for grant of this license. The appellant-writ petitioner has not referred to any Company’s name, which was having BIO license and has been rejected for consideration for grant of this license. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed in the judgment that the State Government had no intention to restrict the competition by excluding persons having experience in other States and limiting the field of eligibility only to those, who have experience of dealing with the business within the State of Uttarakhand. Since the language of 19.1(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Rules, 2024-25 itself does not lay down any criteria that the experience of selling foreign liquor should be from the State of Uttarakhand, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition by observing that respondent No. 3 qualified the condition of experience as per Clause 19.1(b) of the aforesaid Rules by having a BIO license issued by the Uttar Pradesh State. In the facts of the present case, even the BWFL-2(S) license, which has been issued to the appellant-writ petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 16.05.2024, the same has been issued by the Uttarakhand Government under the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910. 16. Another judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Dharampal 2009 (4) SC 170, which has been referred to by the appellant-writ petitioner, is related to service matter, and, therefore, the same will not be relevant in examining the case under the Excise Policy Act. 17. As per the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3 dated 02.08.2024, respondent no. 3 has placed on record a copy of the B.W.F.L.-2(S) license of the appellant/ writ petitioner as Annexure No. C.A.-1, at Page No. 11 of the affidavit. A perusal of this license shows that it has been issued to establish and run a Foreign Liquor Bonded Warehouse. This license has been issued by the authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910, which has been adapted and modified in Uttarakhand. The license of respondent no. 3 has also been placed on record as Annexure No. C.A.-2, which is a BIO-1 license for sale of overseas foreign liquor issued by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Department. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has placed on record these BIO licenses issued on 28.09.2021, 25.03.2022, 20.11.2023 & 14.02.2024 (Annexure No. C.A.-2 along with counter affidavit dated 02.08.2024). 18. Hence, respondent no. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has placed on record these BIO licenses issued on 28.09.2021, 25.03.2022, 20.11.2023 & 14.02.2024 (Annexure No. C.A.-2 along with counter affidavit dated 02.08.2024). 18. Hence, respondent no. 3 has more than three years of experience, and keeping in view the affidavit filed by Prashant Kumar Arya, Excise Commissioner, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, both these licenses are of similar nature, rather BIO license is of a superior nature. It has also been clarified in paragraph no. 22 of the said affidavit that there was no geographical limit of getting the experience in sale of foreign liquor. 19. Hence, both the licenses were considered correctly by the Excise Department, while issuing FL-2(O) licenses to the appellant-writ petitioner, as well as to respondent no. 3. Hence, after hearing counsel for the parties, and going through the contents of both the affidavits, no case is made out to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 20. There is no merit in the present Special Appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.