A Co-operative Society, while applying for a liquor shop license, is bound by the conditions and age limit prescribed in the relevant notification issued by the Excise Department. Incorrect particulars furnished in the application form can lead to the rejection of the application.

( 1 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is Co-operative Society and the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the Society. Pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications for grant of Licence of Foreign Liquor (OFF) and Country spirit in the District of Hooghly, the petitioner made an application for a liquor shop in Pandua Bazar and in its vicinity. The proposed liquor shop at Pandua bazar was reserved for firms/societies formed by unemployed youth registered with the employment exchange. According to the Explanation in the notification dated 4. 2. 2000 containing the order (for short 'the order') unemployed youth meant any person of or above the age of 21 years but not above 37 years. A lottery among the applicants was conducted. The Society secured the first position in a panel of three. Thereafter, the petitioner came to learn that an objection was raised in respect of granting of said licence as one of its members had crossed the age bar of 37 years. The petitioners received a letter dated 28. 12. 2001 from the respondent No. 5. The petitioners replied to the said letter. However, the respondent No. 4 by order dated 25. 5. 2002 rejected the claim of the petitioner, as the petitioner was found unfit and observation was made that the respondent No. 8 herein should be given the opportunity to open FL (OFF) shop if not otherwise disqualified. Being dissatisfied the petitioners moved the writ petition being W. P. No. 9106 (W) of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order passed and with the direction upon the respondent No. 3 herein to decide the matter after hearing and by passing a fresh order. Directions were issued to decide the point in respect of the age. It was directed that if any order is passed in favour of the petitioners such parties whose rights might be affected should be heard.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3 pursuant to such order heard the petitioners and rejected the application of the petitioners. Against such rejection the petitioners moved an application being W. P. No. 16982 (W) of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction upon the petitioners to file an appeal as there was an alternative remedy. The petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2. heard the appeal. By an order dated 18. 7. 2003 the said appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioners have moved the instant writ application. The writ petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs. The prayer which are relevant are as follows :"a) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to show cause why they should not be commanded to issue licence in favour of the petitioners. b) A writ in the nature of certiorari commanding thereof and to certify and to bring before this Hon'ble Court all relevant records and after hearing the cause if any shown quash them all. c) Ad interim order of injunction directing the respondents not to issue licence to Second Pannelled candidate, until the case is disposed of. . . . . . . . . . . "

( 3 ) PURSUANT to directions affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply have been filed. Two supplementary affidavits have been filed by the writ petitioners.

( 4 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the clause 3 of the order in the notification fixing the age limit of unemployed youth is arbitrary, irrational having no nexus with the main purpose of the Bengal excise Act, 1909 (for short 'excise Act') and the West Bengal Co-operative societies Act, 1983 (for short 'co-operative Societies Act') and is ultra vires and void. The petitioner No. 1 being a Co-operative Society is a separate legal entity, a juristic person, it can sue and be sued. Thus, the petitioner No. l applied for the grant of licence independently and the notification containing the order relating to the age bar is inapplicable so far as the petitioners are concerned. Said notification containing the order issued by the Ex