JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J. — Petitioner No.2 is the Sarpanch of Talapada Grama Panchayat. Petitioners 1 and 3 are the Ex-Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. Petitioners 4 and 5 are the Ward Members of Ward Nos. 9 and 8 of Talapada Grama Panchayat. Petitioners 6 to 22 are the villagers of Ganeswarpur in Talapada Grama Panchayat and petitioner 23 belongs to Village Silandi in Talapada Grama Pan¬chayat. The case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the Talapada Grama Panchayat in its meeting held on 25.6.2002 passed a resolution to request the Collector, Jagatsinghpur not to open any foreign liquor shop within Talapada Grama Panchayat for the best interest of the public as there was a college, girls' high school, market at Rahama. The State Government and the Collector after considering the said resolution of Talapada Grama Panchayat did not grant any foreign liquor licence at Rahama for the remaining period 2002-2003. But when an attempt was again made by the authorities to grant Beer Parlour ‘ON’ licence at Rahama, the petitioner No. 2- Sarpanch of Talapada Grama Panchayat along with others submitted an application on 4.12.2003 before the Chief Minister, Minister of Excise, Commissioner of Excise, Collector, Jagatsinghpur and Superintendent of Excise, Jagat¬singhpur objecting to the grant of such Beer Parlour ‘ON’ licence at Rahama. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said objection, the State Government and the Collector have granted Beer Parlour ‘ON’ licence in favour of the opposite party No. 5 on 27.12.2003 for the remaining period 2003-2004. Ag¬grieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the letter dated 27.12.2003 of the State Government granting Beer Parlour ‘ON’ licence at Rahama in the district of Jagatsinghpur in favour of the opposite party No. 5 for the remaining period 2003-2004.

2. ON 20.1.2004 this Court while issuing notice to the opposite parties passed an interim order in Misc. Case No. 203 of 2004 directing that in the meanwhile the operation of the Beer Parlour ‘ON’ licence at Rahama village in the district of Jagat¬singhpur granted to opposite party No. 5 shall remain suspended. The opposite party No. 4 has filed Misc. Case No. 3729 of 2004 and the opposite party No. 5 has filed Misc. Case No. 1150 of 2004 for vacating the said interim order passed on 20.1.2004.

3. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proviso to Section 22 to the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 makes it clear that public notice shall be given of the intention to grant any exclusive privilege under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 and that any objections made by any person residing within that area shall be considered before an exclusive privi¬lege is granted. He argued at despite the said provision, no public notice was issued for the remaining period 2003-2004 before the exclusive privilege was granted to opposite party No. 5 in respect of Beer Parlour ‘ON’ licence.

4. Mr. Routray, learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that it will be clear from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 4 that public notice was issued on 18.10.2003 by the Superintendent of Excise, Jagat¬singhpur inviting objection from the local public and since no objection was received within the stipulated period as mentioned in the said public notice i.e. within 2.11.2003, the licence in favour of the opposite party No. 5 was processed. He further submitted that the resolution dated 25.6.2002 of the Talapada Grama Panchayat was not received by the office of the opposite party No. 4 and that copy of the applica¬tion dated 4.12.2003 of the Sarpanch, Talapada Grama Panchayat, Sarpanch, Sailo Grama Panchayat and others, however, was received beyond the stipulated period, but the same has no relevance to the case. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5 supported the said contentions of Mr. Routray an