JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with several prayers but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except prayer no. 1 i.e., for issuance of order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 19.05.2020, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure – 3 the other prayers have become infructuous because of a long lapse of more than two months from the date of passing of the order in Case No. 136 of 2019 which was a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. accordingly the other prayers are rejected as not pressed. 3. So far as the prayer no. 1 i.e., for issuance of order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 19.05.2020 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the impugned notice, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Hazaribagh, has directed petitioner no. 1 to select a non-objectionable place and to intimate the same to the respondent no. 2, Assistant Commissioner of Excise without any delay or else the petitioners will be held responsible for the delay in respect of the non-objectionable places. 4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said notice to the petitioners is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and without support of any law. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that notice dated 19.05.2020 has been erroneously mentioned as 19.05.2019 in this writ petition by the petitioner, hence the notice dated 19.05.2019 as mentioned in this writ petition is read as notice dated 19.05.2020. 6. Learned counsel for the State very fairly submits that there is no law under which the respondent no. 2 could have issued the impugned notice dated 19.05.2020. 7. Having heard the submissions made above at the bar and after going through the materials available on record, the undisputed fact remains that there is no sanction of law for the respondents to issue the notice dated 19.05.2020 in Memo No. 521. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the said notice (Annexure– 3), dated 19.05.2020 is not sustainable in law, being without the sanction of law. 8. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside and this writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only.