( 1. ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner, who claims to be carrying on the business of an Excise Contractor in the territory of Madhya Pradesh.

( 2. ) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged a notification fixing the programme of an auction of licence for the sale of country liquor in the Indore district. This programme was published in daily newspapers of 17th November 1971. It is alleged in the petition that this auction was to take place on 31st January 1972 and 1st February 1972.

( 3. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there are nine shops for the sale of country liquor in the city itself, and ten in the area surrounding Indore City. It is contended that since 1964 these shops have been collectively auctioned, and this method of collectively auctioning the shops creates monopoly in the business. The petitioner contended that by this process his fundamental right is affected. He contended that in the notification it was made clear that auction may be done separately or in groups. According to the petitioner, auction of the shops in groups is not justified under the provisions of the madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter called the Act ). After the filing of this petition, the auction has taken place and it appears that these shops have been collectively auctioned.

( 4. ) IN the return filed by the respondent No. 1, it was admitted that a notification was issued for an auction of the shops and that it was indicated in the notification that the shops may be auctioned jointly or separately. It was contended that auction of the shops in groups does rot create any monopoly and is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act and does not also affect any fundamental right of the petitioner. It was further contended that when the shops are auctioned separately the Government gets less, whereas if they are auctioned in groups the State gets a substantial sum. It is stated that in the present auction when the shops were separately auctioned the highest bid was of Rs. 12,36,000 whereas when they were auctioned in groups the highest bid was of Rs. 25 lakhs and it was in these circumstances that the authorities chose to auction the shops in groups. It was also contended that at the auction held on 31st January 1972 and 1st February 1972, the petitioner did not comply with the conditions and was not entitled to bid at these auctions, and consequently he has no locus standi to file the present petition.

( 5. ) SHRI Newaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that it is well settled that dealing in liquor is a right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, although this right can be curtailed by reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of general public, and that, therefore, although the licensing of the shops for sale of country liquor may be justified, still the sale of a number of shops in groups cannot be justified as it results in a monopoly and cannot be called a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public. He contended that the creation of such a monopoly runs counter to the accepted policies of the Government. Although the learned counsel conceded that there is no provision in the Act which prohibits the auction of a number of shops grouped together, still he contended that the scheme of the Act indicates that there should be a separate licence for each shop. He referred to section 28 of the Act and rule V (d) of the Rules of general Application given in the Excise Rules (hereinafter called the Rules ). According to him, rule V (d) clearly indicates that a person holding one licence cannot hold any interest in more shops in the adjoining area without the sanction of the Collector. On this basis, learned counsel contended that the auction of the shops in groups runs contrary to the scheme of the Act. He further contended that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules for auctioning of the licence of these shops, although he did not challen