( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying among other the following reliefs: " (a) The issue of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable order or direction quashing the orders of the opposite-party No. 2 (. e. , the Excise Commissioner, U. P. , Allahabad) setting aside the resale of the auction of the two liquor shops in dispute in favour of the applicants, and quashing the order of opposite-party No. 1 (. e. , the Deputy Commissioner, Gonda, exercising powers under the Excise Act) fixing the date of resale thereof on the 2nd December, 1958. (b) The issue of a writ of mandamus ordering the stay of resale by auction of the two liquor shops. "

( 2 ) THE facts that have given rise to this petition may be briefly stated in order to appreciate the question that fell for our determination. The excise authorities in Gonda held an auction for the purposes of granting a license to the highest bidder for the liquor shops, one in Mohalla naushehra and the other in Mohalla Pure Ghose in the town of Gonda. Patandin was granted a licence for the shop in Mohalla Naushehra, while Sri Jagat Narain was granted licence for the shop in Mohalla Pure Ghose, as they happened to be the two highest bidders. The aforementioned persons failed to deposit the amount of the sale money, so that, the sale in their favour was set aside and a fresh sale was held at which the petitioners, before us, were the two highest bidders in respect of the two shops, one at Naushehra and the other at Pure Ghose. The previous bidders, namely, Patandin and Sri Jagat Narain, preferred appeals against the setting aside of the sale and the resale to the Excise Commissioner at Allahabad, and their appeals were allowed. On the 29th of November, 1958, the petitioners were informed that as a result of the appeals of Patandin and Sri Jagat Narain succeeding, their licenses had to be terminated and were terminated and that a fresh sale in consequence was to be held on the 2nd of December, 1958.

( 3 ) THE petitioners challenged the validity of the action that was taken by the Excise commissioner in allowing the appeals and setting aside the sale. They also challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner directing a fresh sale to be held on December 2, 1958. One of the main contentions raised by the petitioners against the order of the Excise Commissioner was that they did not get an opportunity of being heard and that without hearing them an order which was prejudicial to them had been passed and, therefore, the order was liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) WHEN this petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the State to the effect that the Bench sitting at Lucknow had no jurisdiction to entertain, or pass orders on the petition. The learned single Judge, therefore, thought it desirable to have this case put up before a Bench of two Judges. The case has now been put up before us and counsel for the parties first argued the preliminary point, namely, whether the Lucknow Bench had jurisdiction to entertain, or pass orders on this petition.

( 5 ) THE contention in regard to the maintainability of this petition at Lucknow was founded on the provisions of clause 14, first Proviso, of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) order, 1948.

( 6 ) CLAUSE 14 is in these words: "the new High Court, and the judges and division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint: provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the chief Justice may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power fo