The following order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally for disposal. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition and prayed for the following reliefs:— “v\\~ i . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU Writ Petition (C) No. 1566 of 2011 Anita Tiwari, daughter of Shri Ravishankar Tiwari, aged 21 years, resident of Dola Ramnagar, Post Dola City, P.S. Rajnagar, Tehsil Kotma, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh), presently residing at behind Vijay Shree Talkies, Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Excise, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur The Commissioner, Excise, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya,’ DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Collector, Excise, District Narayanpur (CG) Sushan Mehra, son of 8a age not known to the petitioner, resident of Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (CG) allottee of re-allotment of countiy/foreign liquor shop of Group No.1 Narayanpur (CG) PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. n Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents No.1 to 3. ORDER (29-3—201 1) ‘\ Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra 8n Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. L “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to command and direct to call for the entire records relating to allotment of shops of Narayanpur Group by' respondents on 16.3.2011 for its kind perusal and thereafter quash the proceedings by which the shop has been re- allotted to respondent No.4 and direct the respondents to allot the shop of Narayanpur Group to the petitioner herein, in the interest ofjustice.” . Briefly stated facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that ,the petitioner applied for getting licence of country and foreign liquor shop of Narayanpur Group No.1 for the year 2011-12 vide Annexure—P/3. After scrutiny, she was declared as successful bidder for Narayanpur Group No. 1 and she was allotted liquor shop, however, her application as well as allotment made in her favour has been cancelled by respondent No.3 on the ground that she is not eligible to get licence as she had not completed 21 years. . Shri Rajeev Shriva‘stava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that establishment of country/foreign liquor shops in revenue districts of the Chhattisgarh State is governed by the Chhattisgarh Excise Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country/Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules, 2002’) framed in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 62 read With clause (d), (d-l), (e), (f) and (g); and clause (b) of sub-section (l) of Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. Under the rules, the excise year'commences from lvst April and ends on 31st March of subsequent calendar year. The applications for grant of licences are invited as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 whereas Rule 9 prescribes eligibility. conditions for applicant and under Rule 9 (b), it is provided that the applicant should be above 21 years of age. As per the provisions of the Rules, 2002, respondent No.2 issued memorandum on 8—2—2011 declaring the dates for inviting applications and allotment of shops for different areas in the State. For district Narayanpur, the application forms were required to be submitted till 5.30 pm on 23d February 2011 and the same was to be opened on 9‘11 March, 201 1. Subsequently, last date for submitting application was extended up to 3rd March, 201 1 and the date for allotment of shops through lottery was fixed as 16th March, 2011. The petitioner’s application was s (W9 scrutinized and the same was found in order and the list of the candidates whose applications were found in order was affixed in the office of respondent No.3 on 13th March, 201 1. Thereafter the shop in question was allotted to the petitioner by draw of lottery in favour of the petitioner on 16th March, 2011, however, her application was rejected and her allotment was cancelled on the ground that she had not completed the age of 21 years and on the basis of re—allotment process, respondent No.4 was allotted the shops of Narayanpur. 'It was vehemently argued that purposive construction of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 would make it abundantly clear that cut-off date for computing V the age of 21 years to be eligible for submitting an application for obtaining licence of liquor shop would be lst April, 201 1, the day o’n which excise year i.e. financial year wommences whereas, the petitioner has completed‘Ql years of age on 12m March, 2011 even before allotment of shop was made on 16th March, 2011 by draw of lottery and much before commencement of excise year 201 1—12. 6. On the other hand, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate t4: n General appearing for the State and Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in their return as well as in their oral submissions argued that Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 prescribes eligibility condition for the applicants i.e. only those applicants who fulfill eligibility condition under Rule 9(b) that is to say who are above 2 l years of age could submit their applications for allotment of liquor. shops. The petitioner in order to get licence for sale of liquor made false declaration in her application of Annexure—P/3 submitted on ”28-2-2011 that she has completed the age of 21 years and she has also sworn an affidavit in support of her application on 28-2-201 1 that her age is more than 21 years though according to her own admission, she was to complete her age on 12m March, 2011 i.e. much after the last date fixed for submitting the application and as such, she was not eligible for applying for liquor shop as per condition of Rule 9(b) of the Rules, 2002 and as per eligibility criteria mentioned in clause 6 of memorandum of Annexure-R/l whereby the applications for grant of licence were invited. Relying upon decision of this Court in the matter of Rishi Dikshit Vs. State of C.G. 85 another {2005 (1) CGLJ 336}, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Lanka and another Vs. Rishi Dixit and others {(2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 598 : AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2821}, it was argued that conditions enumerated in clauses (a), (b) 85 (c) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 are essential conditions which are required to be fulfilled for obtaining licence. Where any candidate is debarred by any of the conditions from filing an application and if such an application is filed, the same would be liable to be rejected at the outset. s‘u‘ ‘ In the instant case, the petitioner participated in the process of selection by filing false affidavit that she has completed 21 years, however, when the same was discovered, subsequently her application was rejected and her allotment was cancelled. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The short question for adjudication of this petition is — whether the petitioner was eligible to participate in the allotment procedure of the liquor shop as per conditions of memorandum of Annexure-R/ 1 and conditions enumerated in Rule 9. 9. Clause-6 of the terms of application reads as under:— w/wmaww/wnwe meganwmmwweaimm W§,21H&%Wm§aum aifhieimmgwqafmmmwmwe maimwemamnnwwn WHWWEWQH'W/WW/ mmnWHE‘H WWWWW$ Wmmwewhmi’IWWWEr abiewmwei,®WR/Wwa WHEN” 10.Rule 9(b) of the Rules, 2002 reads as under:— “9. Eligibility Conditions for applicant.- The applicant has to fulfill the following conditions for obtaining the licence for shop/group of shops of country/foreign liquor Xxx xxx xxx (b) Should be above 21 years of age. Xxx Xxx 11.The interpretation of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 came for consideration of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Lanka and another (Supra). The relevant portion of aragraph—48 is reproduced hereunder:— p ygk “Rule 9 provides that the eligibility conditions should be scrutinized before an application is made. Rule 9 is in two parts. It deals with the eligibility conditions of the applicant. It does not make any exception as regards fulfillment of different clauses inasmuch as the said rule begins with the expression “the applicant has to fulfil the following conditions”. Such conditions are required to be fulfilled for obtaining the licence. Whereas clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof are essential conditions which would debar a person from filing an application and if such an application is filed, the same would be liable to be rejected at the outset.” 12.1ndisputably, the petitioner submitted her application on 28‘2~2011 and also filed her affidavit in support of her application. From perusal of the application and affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is manifestly clear that she declared in her application and affidavit that she has completed 21 years on the date of filing of application though on her own admission, she completed the age of 21 only on 12m March, 2011 whereas, the last date for submission 'of application, as per pleadings in the writ petition, was 3rd March, 201 1. From reading of clause-6 of memorandum of Annexure—R/l as well as Rule 9, it is abundantly clear that to be eligible to apply for liquor shop, a candidate must have fulfilled the conditions enumerated in Rule 9, as the same are essential conditions and where the candidate does not fulfill the ab'ove conditions, he is debarred from’filing an application and if such an application is filed, the same is liable to be rejected at the outset, as held by the Supreme Court. 13.1n these circumstances, following the judgmentmf the 'Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Lanka and another (Supra), we are of the opinion that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the liquor shop on the last date of submission of application and, therefore, we find no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents in rejecting her application form and canceling her allotment on the ground that she was not eligible. 14.In theresult, the writ petition is devoid of substance, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra RANGANATH CHANDRAKAR Judge Judge