( 1 ). The vires of Rule 21 of the Delhi Country Liquor Bonded warehouse Rules, 1962 is in question in this LPA and connected writ petitions.

( 2 ). THE basic fact of the matter, which is similar in all the cases, is not much in dispute.

( 3 ). However, for the purpose of disposal of these cases, we may note the fact of the matter from CWP 1253/2000.

( 4 ). The writ petitioners have been granted licence for wholesale supply of liquor in form CLW-1/l-9. hi terms of the conditions of the said licence, liquor was to be supplied in the bottles at the rates specified therein. The petitioners deposited the security amount and licence fees in terms of the Terms and Conditions therefor. In terms of clause 20 of the Terms and Conditions of the contract, the licensee is required to hold such stocks of liquor as are considered by the Collector of Excise to meet day-to-day requirements of the country liquor vends and failure on his part to do so would entail him to pay penalty not exceeding Rs. 2. 00 per proof litre of country liquor. Allegedly, the respondent No. 3 issued Show Cause Notices on 9/12/1993, 21st December 1993, 7th j january 1994, 6/04/1994, 17/06/1994 and 2/11/1994 alleging that the petitioner had violated Clause 21 of the excise policy by not supplying 25% of the total quantity of country liquor ordered for a particular month by the 8th day of the month and/or by not supplying 50% of the total quantity by 15th day and/or 75% of total by 22nd day and/or 100% by the last day of that month.

( 5 ). On the aforementioned ground the petitioner was called upon by the respondent No. 3 to show cause as to why an action under Section 36 (C)/80 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 may not be taken against it. Replies to the said notices were submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 being not satisfied therewith imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 7,51,833. 50 upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeals before the respondent No. 2. Although the orders passed by respondent No. 3 were initially stayed but the appeals were ultimately dismissed.

( 6 ). The said order was questioned in the writ petition wherein tlie petitioner inter alia had prayed for the following relief:

I) Issue a Writ of Mandmus or any other suitable writ or direction quashing Rule 21 of the Delhi Bonded warehouse Rules 1976, or such part thereof as may be found to be ultra vires the power of the rule making authority.

( 7 ). A learned single Judge of this court declared the said rules to be unconstitutional and consequently held that the order impugned in the writ petition imposing penalty was illegal.

( 8 ). The said judgment is in question in this Letter Patent Appeal. Several writ petitions have also been filed questioning similar orders passed by the Commissioner of Excise.

( 9 ). In CW 1257/2000, the show cause notices issued by respondent no. 3 were dated 2/11/1994, 22/02/1995, 21/08/1995, 22nd August 1995, 8/01/101/1996 and 10th January 1996 and tootal penalties amounting to Rs. 7,65,950. 00 were imposed vide different orders dated 30/05/1994 and 1/09/1994. The prayer therein was to the following effect:

" (A) issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby quashing or setting aside the orders dated 6/03/2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 in appeals No. 4, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31/94. "

( 10 ). In CW 1262/2000, the show cause notices issued by respondent no. 3 were dated 9/12/1993, 21st December 1993, 7/01/101/1994 and 6/04/1994 and total penalties amounting to Rs. 15,82,8007- were imposed vide different orders dated 25/02/1994, 6/04/1994, 6/06/1994, 10th June 1994, 16th Jun June 1994, 18th Jul July 1994, 1/09/1994, 15th September 1994, 7th Octooctober 1994 and 7/11/1994. The prayer therein was to the following effect:

" (A) issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby quashing or setting aside the orders dated 6/03/2000 passed by