S.N. ANDLEY, J. :- We are confining our decision in this writ petition to the question whether the impugned order dated 7/17th February, 1968 was passed in violation of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 or the principles of natural justice. This order came to be passed in the circumstances hereinafter stated.

2. The petitioner; respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 are sons of late Ishar Dass. The deceased was the holder of an L-4 licence issued to him under the Act for the retail sale of liquor in a restaurant. The deceased was the sole proprietor of the Esplanade Bar and Restaurant, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He died on or about June 2, 1946. Thereafter, on March 14, 1947, a deed of partnership was executed between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, being the successors and heirs of the deceased, in respect of the business carried on under the style of Esplanade Bar and Restaurant. In 1948, these three persons also purchased the United Coffee House, New Delhi. In 1951, the petitioner ceased to be a partner of the business carried on in the name of Esplanade Bar and Restaurant and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 ceased to be partners in the United Coffee House, New Delhi.

3. The L-4 licence was discontinued on or about August 13, 1956 in accordance with the prohibition policy and in its place an L-2 licence was, it is alleged granted to Kishan Lal and Co. The L-2 licence was for wholesale and retail sale of liquor. At this time, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were the partners of Kishan Lal and Co. aforesaid.

4. Another partnership deed was entered into on July 1, 1964, whereby respondent No. 5 son of respondent No. 3, was taken in as a partner of Kishan Lal and Co. and, on July 27, 1964, an application was made for the inclusion of respondent No. 5 as a partner in respect of the L-2 licence.

5. Another partnership deed was entered into on July 1, 1966 whereby the petitioner also came in as a partner of Kishan Lal and Co. Therefore, at this time, the partners of Kishan Lal and Co. were the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Since the petitioner had become a partner of Kishan Lal and Co., an application was made on December 10, 1966, for including his name also on the aforesaid L-2 licence. It is the contention of the petitioner that written statements were made by respondent No. 3 on his own behalf and as attorney for respondent No. 5 and by respondent No. 4 supporting the application which had been filed on December 10, 1966.

6. On April 19, 1967 another deed of partnership was executed between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in which, inter alia, the respective shares of the partners were redetermined. It is alleged that prior to this partnership deed, respondent No. 3 had, on April 5, 1967 made an application to the Excise authorities for withdrawal of his earlier application for including the name of the petitioner in L-2 licence.

7. The District Excise Officer passed an order on June 9, 1967 which was communicated to Kishan Lal and Co. by his letter dated June 14, 1967. By this letter the aforesaid firm was informed that the request for the inclusion of the names of respondent No. 5 and the petitioner had been allowed subject to the responsibilities for all obligations under the Excise law. In fact, a further communication dated June 20, 1967 was addressed by the District Excise Officer to Kishan Lal and Co. stating that the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had been included in the L-2 licence as partners and the L-2 licence was itself returned to the firm.

8. Then on November 7, 1967, respondent No. 3 sent a representation to the Lt. Governor, Delhi, in which, broadly speaking, it was contended that respondent No. 3 was always the sole proprietor of the aforesaid L-2 licence and continued to be so. He prayed that the two names added to the L-2 licence should be deleted. Upon this representation, a notice dated November 28, 1967 was issued to the petitioner an