By an order dated June 26, (exhibit J), the divisional commissioner rejected the application for extension of time and cancelled the sale starting that (1) the appellant did not "at one& ' apply in writing, for licences in accordance with r. 19(1); (2) though he deposited two months ' rent as required by r. 19 (2), he did not file a statement of his immovable properties in accordance with r. 19(1); and should therefore be, considered as a person of doubtful solvency; (3) he was, therefore, required to deposit another 2 months ' rent under r. 19 (3) (i) and to furnish securities for six months ' rental or surety under r. 1 9 ( 3 ) (ii) and (iii) ; (4) he failed to comply with r. 19 in spite of notices dated June 6 and ' June 19; (5) the circular issued by the excise commissioner was opposed to r. 19 and could not be acted upon; (6) that even under the circular he was required to give two months ' collateral security in addition to 4 months ' cash deposit if he was a person, of doubtful solvency; and (7) that the sale conducting,officer has no power to extend the time for compliance with the formalities. 18 On June 28, the appellant filed writ petition No. 1889 of 1968 against the State of Mysore and others in the High ,Court of Mysore for quashing the order dated June 26, (exhibit Jr) and for the grant of licences to him to vend liquors in the combined groups of shops in Raichur and Gulbarga ,districts and for other reliefs.