'l 1 te IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR (M.PJ • W.P. Vo^^S} /2000 ^ PETITIOM^R J^^ RESPONDEBTS M/s. Sun Bright Marketing Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director Shri Prakash Chand Sethi, 199, Civil Lines, near Dr. Virdi House, Raipur (M.P.) VE R SU S 1. Commissioner (Excise), Gwalior (M.P.) 2.v Collector (Excise), Raipur (M.P.) 3. Assistant Commissioner <Exc,ise), Raipur (M.P.) y^ y Qa^ I1- fl • TAz d^t9"»^7'Btfoad'^vt ^ S-^-w- effi ^ L) . Q .^ S^-ic€- CowiTU'*i"ftU^- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOE ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER. DIEECTION ETC. i''<W»iw^"" ^TUW-'?- •?'^^?)F^SiE?ffi^^^^;^?gE!^-^ r\. ./•-•r'-l ; VKi'S PETITION N0.6021 of "2000 M/ s^. Sun Bright MarkettBg Pv-t .Ltd —v- ^-The Gommj. ssioner ariS>fi'Ebers (Exetse) Gwalior ORDER Eps-b .Eor ^f -^-200-1 ^ft^ u:A •^i-, -^ HIGH COQRT OF eHEBiaTISG&RH s A!T BIIASPCR. WEi-b Pefeltloa SQ»6@21of 2000» M/s sun Brigy-fc HarlEet.ing Pvt. I<td«* tbr©aghits Managiag Birestor, Shri Prakasfa'Cfaaad sethi. Va Tbe Ccmmisslener- (Exeise), Gwalior (B»p.) & ©thers Pefeitioner. Respondeafes * * * * * * , O R DE R By. Boa.Sbri, R.S.GaFg.J". s By this petiCloa wader article 226/227 of tfae cons-titufeioi^of Indla, the petl.tioner elaiias the relief tlaat the reoords relatiag teo the contract and issuance o£ the notiee to the petitioiaer, be " ealied; the impugaea notj.Ge dated 11.10.20QO- *^' '• . -- ' ' .' : ^ :; (AonexisUTe-P/15) be quasbeA; the petitioaer Be given ereaife for 3 days i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd ^iTll, 2000, as tbe licence in ques'fciaii was issued aa 3c<S .^>ril, 2000 'itself^ ttie respoadents be dlreeted to 'glye eeedit ol 13 days to the pe'titiener' for wba.ete the petit.ioneF's staops retaained elosed tailScGOBi^ of WiS^el^e& S^ S^^r t^ p^ibl<mes be giw^n| i25 days grac®peci.Qd s o^ fetiat. tie may iBQinpensafcei : thes 2)« | Ttae pefctt.i.sneE being a swseessfStl. was awarded eonfei»Gt^Q®eounAsy llqao^ lossea. 2 - liquor for tbe districfc Raipur.for tbe period canmenGing £rom 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2001. As per the sale raemo and tbe auction notice, the contract was tp cominenee w.e.f. 3.-4-2000, but because o£ certain administra-tive problems, the eontract/licence coald be awarded/granted to the petitioner bn 3-4-2000 and the permit was isaued to the petitioner on tbe saine day at about 6.00 p.ra. Aceording to ttie petitioneE as tbere was delay of 3 days in award of contract, he was not liable to pay the licence fee for those 3 days.and was entitled to pro-rata. dedaction £or 3 days or in the alternative, was not liable to pay tbe lieenee fee for the 3 days. Aecording to the petitioner» on account of the political demonstrations • as tbe newState of r Cbbattisgarh wasGcanlng .i-n-to existence» the petitionei was reqttifed to close his sbeys. He wag also re- quired to close bis sbops under the illegal orders of tbe Collector, when tbe eleetiGB proeess ccmimen- ced in tbe eontiguous district . The petitioner was required to close his sbops between 22.6.2000 to 24.6.2000 as the elections were conducted in Durg MuniGipal corporation. He was also required to close bis shqps between 28.7.2000 to 30.7.2000 uader the orders of tbs District Magistrate,Raipur (Annexure-P/6), as.tbe elections of Bhilai Municipal Corporation were conducted. He was also required to close his sbops on 20th.21st and 22nd July.2000 because o£ the polltical agitations/demonstrations. He was also required to close his shqps on 5-9-2000 as under the political agitation, the_@olitieal - 3 - parties and tbe public at large were denandj.ng the maia seat of High court of Cbba'btisgarh at Raipur and a Bandb was declared. similarly, he was required to close h.i.s sbops OB a political agita- tioa relating to Kargil/Kasbalr issue. He also sulaijlts that bis shops also^closedon aGeoxmt of Motaarrani and Iiidependence-day» tberefore, he is entitled to eonpensation for those 2 days also. Aecordirig f.o the petitiener, Moharraa and Indepen- as dence-day were declared^dry daya, but tbe other 11 days were not declared as dry days and in view of the politleal agitations and elections, tbe petitioner was required to close hls shops.therefore, he is entitled todeelaration in his favour that he is not libale to pay pro-rata licenGe fee for 11 days. According to the petitioner, the closare of the shops on partieular days do not come under the tenns of tbe sale memo, tiaerefore, he is entitled t.o compensation. 3). According to the petitioner, be was not given credit for 3 days in tbe mcaith of aipril,2000 aad on aceount of closu.re o£ sbops on 11 days, he ' had sustaineel losses. Besp.S.te that, the respeadent No.2 issued a memeranduia dated 3Ist August.2000 to tbe pefcitioner stating that the petitioner did not deposit tbe auction money for the inonth o£ July.2000, t-berefore, the sbeps £or the remaining pei-iod may be put to reaiiction. The said raemorandun/ netiee is Ninexure-P/8. Tbe petitioner Immediately sutanifeted a representation aad poin-fced^ut^o^^tee^ - 4 - aiifeborities tbat he was e&titied to credifc for 3 days auetion money for tbe month •of ^ril,2000. Aceording to btm, be inforaed the authorities that on aGcount. o£ undeelared, dry days, the petitioner was reqaired to close his sbops for 13 days.there- -fore* be was etttit.led tocredit of tbe said days. Tbe representation has been annexsd to the petition as annexure-P/9. 4). The respondents after receivj.ng tbe representation dropped tbe pKBRinsB proposed re- auction. On 23.9.2000, under Aimexure-P/10, tbe collector, Excise.Raipur issued a notiee to the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner's iS.oeace be not cancelled and the shops be not put to reauctlon, as tbe petitioner did not deposit the balaaee amount for the month of August.2000. The petitioner submitted yet anofeher representation/ repXyon 29.9.2000 vide Annexiure-P/11. In this representation also, thepetitioner requested the autherities for graltt of credit for 3 days of ^>rtl» 2000 and the days for which be was Ganpelled to close bis slaops* AecordJlng to tbe petitioner, bis reply to t.hesbow-eaBse notice was not considered and the respendeats isaueGl yet another meno dated 30-9-2000. & copy of wbicb bas bee& filed toy the petitioner at &nnexure-P/l2. Tbis raemorandani/notice again iiifor-med tbe petitioner tbat as he did net deposit the amount dae for the montb of July, tbe shops would be put to reauction. The petitioner under Annexure-p/13, dated 9.10.2000 su^amitted^ - ^ 5 - . ! , . another representation to the authorities stating thafc h4.s representafelon seeking credit/compensation for 3 days of April.2000 and the days £or whj.ch he was required to c lose his sbqps was not con- sidered, thecefore, antil final decision of the representation, the reauction be kept In abeyance. He.bowever, informed the authorities that he had deposited the substantial araountbetween 30th Sept., 2000 to lOtb October.2000. On 10-10-2000, the petitioner submitted yet anotber representation against the meaoraadum dated 30.9.20^00. The repres^ntation dated 10.10.2000 has been. annexed to the petition as Annexure-P/14• On 11.10.2000, the petitioner was served wifeh a nobice that in relation to andeelared dry days, the petitioner's objections were not maintainable. The petitioner was alse informed that for giving credit of 3 days e^, •^^^irj.1,2000, instructioas were sougbt froia tbe Offiee of the ccHimissioner. Tlae petitioner Was again Informed that if the balance amount was not depoaited by 17.10.2000, thelicence granted in favoiir o£ the petitioner would be aancelled and the shops would be put to>reauction on 17th itself. The-said memorandum bas been annesced with the petition as &nnescure-P/15« 5). The petitioner submits tbat tbe memoranduras issued by the authorities. especially, the meme- randum dated ll.l0.20QO(Annexi»re-P/15) is bad, illegal and is contrary to tbe provisions of law. According to the petitioner, -bfae petitioner could \ .A'V - 6 - not be Goaipelled to cloge his shcps on tbe days which were not deelared as dry days and as he is entitled to the eredlt of itliose days or in the alternative, be is entitled to be cca^ensated in tenns of daily licenee fee and tbe loss of the pro£its»-tlie respondents would not be justified in dananding tbe fnll amount for wbole of tbe year. 6). The petitioner has submitted tbat the lieerace fee for 1st,2nd and 3rd A^>rll,2000 could not be recovered nor is recavecable from tbe peti- tioner because the contract came into existence en 3-4-2000 and the permife was also Assued in favour of the petitioner on the sarae daya. The petitioner szibtaits that the collector on the ground of adinini- strat'ive exigency and/or in the public interest, may direct elosure of the shops for 3 days» but In the present matter, there was no aiaministrative exigeney and as according to the sale meao the sbops are required to be closed i£ the elections /.'""-•<- are being beld in the^vicinity, 13'ie directions of the Collector.Raipur to close tbe shops of Raipur district* though tbe elections were to be held in the adjacent distriGt, tbesaid closure effected UBder tbe orders of tbe Collecfeor is contrary to tbe terms pf- tbe Act, General Conflitions and the sale memo, tberefore, febe petitioner 4s entitled to be eompensated for the period toetween 28.B.2000 to 30.7.2000 and 22.6.2000 to 24.6.2000. Tbe petitioner sulamits that on aGCOiint of tbe polltical agitations, the pefeitioner was required to close 7 - his shops for atleast 5 days, tberefore, tbe petitioner is entitled to be compensated and the respondents are not entitled for these * 5 days licence fee. 7). The present petitlon was filed on 16.10. 2000 in Madbya Pradesb. On 17.10.2000, Hon'ble Mr.iJustice Deepak Hisra.directed issuance o£ ttie notice to the otherside on tbe question of admi- ssion/flnal dlsposal. Iiearried cQQaasel for the petitioner subnaitted that out o£ tbe demand amount, the petitioaer bad ^deposited tbe substantial amount ahd if some time"4s granted to the petitioner, tbe balance amount shall be deposited. On 17.10.20SO, the High Coiurt directed that If tbe bal.ance aaouat sball is deposited by 29.10.2000. no eoafraive steps^ofcti: be taken against the petifcioner. After constitution of tbe State o£ Chhattisgarb, thelaatter was trans- ferred from High Court of Madbya Pradesh to High Court of Chbatti.sgarb* The raatter iteW! came-up for hearing OB 29.12.2000. On 29..12.2800, this Court direeted that the effeet and qperation of let.ter dated 23.12.2000, issued by tbe Departinent. shall ranain stayed till next date of hearing. The matter Utfas.directed to be listed on 4th January,2001« On 4-1-2001, the aaatter again came-up for bearing. Leamed c ounsel for the respondents/St.ate Informed tbat. the return was already filed. This Cotirt.there- -fore, direeted tbat the matter may be listed on 9.2.2001 £or furtber hearing. The matter.tbereafter, caine-upfor hearing on 9.2.2001. Xt waSr.required 8 - tQ be adjourned on a request inade by the learned counsel for tbe petitioner. On 24.2.2001, the petition was beard in part and as the learned coansel £or the respondents raised an objection that tbe State of Cbhattisgarb was a necessary party aad In absenGe of the State of cbhattisgarb, the petitiea deseSvea/ dismissal. Learned counsel for tbe petitioner prayed tbat if some tiae was given to him, he would join tbe State as a party. on 28.2.2001, applicat.iqji for joining the party caiae-up £or bearlng and the same was allowed. The respondents 4(A) and 4(B) were joined. on 1-3-2001, tbe learned Dy.Advocate General, appeared £or tbe newly added respondents 4(&) and 4(B) and submitted before theCourt that tbe return filed by tbe respondents 1 to3 be treated as return flled aa £or and on behalf of respondents 4(A) and 4(B), After bearlng the parties, this Court granted inter.ua d.S.rection in favour of the petitioner for exemption from paying the liGeilce fee for iriaaso days'. After the int.erim order, the parties were finally heard. 8). During the course of the arguments, Dr.N.E. Stiukla, learned Dy.advocate General, placed bis sferong reliance upon tbe judgment of High Courfc of Madbya pradesb in the matter of Shatru.ghanlal shri- vastaya and otbers Vs. State oS Hadhya Pradesh and Sfe&ers. reported in t997(2) M.P.I..J.-54 and in the matter of Aslaok Kuadr Sabu and another Vs. state of M.P* and others, reported in A1R 1994-M.P.-130- I found that in yiew of the dl.ffeceace^ in tbe tenas o£ tbe sale raaao o£ t.be case o£ sbakBughaalal (Stipra) and tbe present petitloaer, the parties were required to be further heard. The matter was listed on 22.3.2001. Learned counsel for tebe respondents prayed for time and the parties were, thereafter, heard on 30.3.2001. Tbe respondents subiaitted their reply to the interim application, but, however, at the time of bearing, subinitted before tbe court tbat the said reply be treated as their return. 9). In the repiy eua retuETi, the respondents sutamitted that the state of Chhattisgarh was a necessary party and in'absenee o£ the state o£ Chhattisgarh, tbe petit-toner could not proceed. However, tbls objection now does not survive in view of joinder of respondents 4(A)and$ (B). Accor- ding to -fche respondents. the petitioner did not raise any objeetioia. In the departmental forxun and as they bave direcfcly approcahed the High Coart, the petitlona deserves to be dismissed. In paragrapb 3. they clearly stated that country liquor and foreign liquor shops of district Raipur, were auctioned on 30.3.2000 and as the auction bid was coafirued by tbe Gaanissioner.Excise, Gwalior on 3-4-2000; but, as tbe contract period /|(&fa' comraenced w.e.f. l-4-2000, thepetitioner is 1-table to pay licence fee for the period between 1-4-2000 to 3-4-2000. They also siibmitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any adjiistments for all ..//1 10 - the sfaops of Raipgr district because on account o£ electidns in Durg and Bbxlai, all tbe sheps of Raipur district were not required to be closed. It was further submitted in the retuYn tbat -the orders for closure of fcbe shops were passed by the Collector Raipur, in view ofi tbe request e£ the Collector, Durg and.the notification of Madbya Pradesh state Eleetion conanission and the notification o£ the State Goveriuaent dated 13.12.99 (Aimexure-R/7) and as tbe General Conditions o£ the licence says tbafe " Bvery lieence for the retail sale of intOKi- caats shall be bound to obseiTye both -the general and special conditions of the liceace and all the direct.l.ons and orders issued.wbether sucb directions and orders beembodied in the condit-ions of the licenee or not." According to them, the state Qaveriunent is authorised to amend any condltion of licence duffing the Gurrency of the lieence, unless otherwise directed, sucb amendment shall be effective as from tbe eOKimencemen-b of tbe licence and the licensee sballbe bouxid by the same and shall not be entltled to any damages on account of any such amendment. the petitioner is neither entitled to any remission/compensation, adjustment or credit. They also submit tbat the contractors are entitled f®rexemption only wfaen the shops are closed by the order of collector and as tfaere was no order by the Collector,Raipur, relating to Cbhattisgarh movement or £or establisbaent o£ High CouE-t or Kashmir crisis the petitioner is not entitled tp any exemption. It - 11 - is also subnlfeted in the rettirn tbat the petitioaer did not Goiae to ttie Hlgb Court witb clean bands and as the petitioner is not entltled to any relief, tbe petition deserves dismissal. 10). Shri N.C.Jain,sr.Counsel, submitted before the Court tbat £or ttae period between 1.4.2000 to 3.4.2000, as ttie licenee and permit were not ia existenee» the respoadents are not entitled to any licence £ee for those 3 days. Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to meet this argumeat. He, hewever, submits that tbougb there was delay In eonfirm-Lng the auctioa bid, but.as the licenee perlod c<MBneneed fran 1st April.ZOOO, tbe petitioner is liable to pay tbe licence fee for the period between 1-4-2000 to 3-4-2000. 11). In tbe qpinlon of tbis Court, if the bid of the petitioner was not accepted uptQ 3.4.2000, HQ agreement/eontract cane into existence upto 3.4.2000 anel as the perait was issuea to the peti- tioner for the first timeoa 3.4.2000 and he could opea tbe shops on 4«4»2000aRdagiamence^-his work w.e.f. 4.4.2000, the petitioaer cert.ainly would be sald entitled to seek exaaption for tbe^period o£ 3 days. Tbe petitioner's subBissioa that he is entitled to raaission or compensation or credit, may be termed tbat be is as loose pbrase, but tbe effefit is^ot liable to pay the licenee fee £or lst^,2nd and 3rd April,2000. The respondents under the law, feneral Conditions and tbe sale memo, so also the sontract, are not entitled to recover tbe liceaee fee £or^tbe_^id 12 - days. If tbe p.etitioner has'paid the amount for the sald days* be is entitled to reftind or if be t~*< a^-not paid the said ameunt, then, be is not liable to pay the licenee £es £or tbose 3 days. 12). Sbri Jaia,learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to section 24, General Con- di-tions ^i of the licence, especially condition No.8, framed uader Section 62(2) (g}(b) and tj) and tlie sale mano subinits that a fair perusal and appreeiation^of the legal provisioas and the sale mano^wouia clearly sbesr that a licensee is liable to close his sbops on tbe dry days so declared at the tirae of auction and oa a11 such other days wbicb are mentioned in Sebeuule 4 annexed to the ScAe memo and if in violation o£ tbe scbedule 4 he is required -bo elose bis shops, eitber under tbe orders of the Colleetor or because of particular exigenGies, then, sucfo a llcensee is ent.i.tled to exeaption and ccxnpensation. It 1s also submitted by'hlm that closure of tbe sbops on account of elections inDurg and Bhilai, does not fall within- ^t^,^ Clause;(5) an<3. note appended to/Scheduie 4^i(a& the petitioner is entltled.to 6 days exemptioa from payment o£ licence £ee« He also submitfeed that because o£ the agitations, tbe petitioner had to elose all tbe shops in Raipnr districfc for 5 days, therefore, he is entitled to exemption/eompensation. It is also submitted by biin that the petitioner is also entitled to caapens.ation for Moharraa and si 15th August. According to him, the petitioner was - 13 - required to approach the Higb Court because the respondents were not ready and willing to deeide the repr'.esentafeioHs and were extending tbreats tbat the coatract would be eancelled and the shops would be put to reauctioa. Aceording toi hln, in absence of any deeision on bis representations, tbe peti- -fei<Mer had no otber remedy but to approacfa the High court. 13). Oa tfae otber barid, Dr.N.K.shukla.learned Dy.Advocate General, placing bis strong relianee upon the judgmaat of the Madhya Pradesh Higb court in the caatter ®f Asholt Kumar Sabu Vs. State of M.P., reported in &IR 1994 M.P.—130,sutanits that section 24 read witb condition 8 of General. conditions, would authorise the.Colleetor to order alosure o£ tbe shops. beeaiise the power of the^collector to direct closure of the sbops as provided under Clause (D- of General Conditions No.8 is not exbaustive,but3e±iEfaClause(2) is exhaustive of the powers of the collector> Placlng relianee upon tbe judgment of tbe High Court in the matter of Shatrugbanlal shriyastava and Otbers Vs. State of Madhy_a__Praaesb and Others, reported in 1997(2) M.P.Ii.iT«-S4, it is cohtended that i£ tbe sale memo contains certain conditions. thea, the said con- ditions are binding em the party and as in the present case, the sale aemo conditlon No.ISgibvems unfore- seen sit.i.iation, the petitioner is asafc not entitled to any coapensation/exemption.: Placing further relianee on the judgment in the _matter^pf - 14 - State of^ N,adbya_ Pradesh and_?knother Vs. Harishcband, repprted in 2000(11 SM.P.J.R.—489,It is submitted that remission pf the licence fee is pennisslble only in the eireumstances Govered ander the provis.l.ons' and circurostances mentioned in Section 32 of ttie Excise Act, 1915 and as Seetion. 32 in its teras does not apply, tbe petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The question relating to tbe altemative remedy though was raised in the retum. bufe was, not pressed into service at tbe time o£ aFeruments. 14). Sbri Jai^, learned eounsel for tbe petitioner submitted that the matter of state o£ Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harlsbcband (Supra) was decided on the particular £acts»but a perasal o£the jadgment would show that tbe Higb Court was of .the opinlon that. t.he plaintiffs o£ each o£ the appeal was entitled to nanlnal damages. He subniits that though tbe petitioners bave clataed remlssion, but tbe loose pbrase should not come in their way and tbe full relief deserves to Be allowed to the petitioner. Referring to tbe judgment in the matter of Shatrughanlal Vs. State of Nadhya Pradesh(supra), he submits that. the Higfa cotirt was cons.i.dering paras 16 and 42 of tbe sale memo; but as any equivalent to para 42 of tbe earliersale memo is not ta*^. found in tbe sale memo for the year 2000-2001, the sald Judgment woald have ao appl4.catiCTi.»_ •eo-eed o-p-[qnd sq-i. 50 uoT^BAjssssd sq^ so-j. AjBSssssa s(a-cq'4 ABBI sq SB pot.isd qons 303 jo sernTr^ qons q®pssoto sq TTB(-(S PTOS s-p -I.UBSTXOT.HT Aue qo-rqM HT sdbqs Xxiv I.ET.C^ 'Qsmbas Aem 'BSSUSOTT sq'1®^Stif^raK vn SO-F^OU Aq 'e^E^^STSBli •^OTJT.STCI si.IA (T) - eoead OTtcmd ?o s'Jfvs sq% 303 sdoi.is 30 BirpsoTO '^Zu " -; aspim SB spss.t ^o^ sq^ 30 1>Z UOT-^OSS 'swes/avf^ ?o suoTS-rAo-id --t-^3'^"Tny PUE S'OH aoTi-cpuoo''souaoi-T tejsasS * ^z UOT^OSS 04 asjsa 01 s-[qefj-?ojd sq p-[noM ^T • S^TJSU sq'» ao sq.ustunS.ie avi-^ BaTjspTeuoo sjeysg *(9T •S'l.USUmB-IB 3Tsl(^ P338pTSUOS SASy pUB qq.6usi ^B ss-y-^jBd sq^. pjesq SABI} i *(ST •esje XBVt-^ci JiVi-e UT PTsq SuTSq SJB saTpeq TSOOT si.l^ ^fo suo7^os-[3 sqq. 3T 'sdoqe sq^ 30 3-rnsoTO ^.OSJTP OT. jo'^osTT°3 el-(^ as-Fjoq-^ne ^ou ssop 'owsa e-[BS eip. 3:0 ^ s-rTtpsqos 50 (s) SSRB-[O 01. pspuaads aqou sqq. 'urpy o^ Sa-i-pJooov 'peq S-F JO^OSTTOO sy^ 30 aapao sqi. 'Bjna pue -!:BTTtia ^s ao SoToS S3SM suo-c^ST3 ay4 nsqM. po-FJsd St!'» 303; ST sdoqs sqq 30 aanso-io ^c? jspao sv^ se OUE 33p3o Aae snesT: ^ou p-yp joq.os-[-[oo sq'q. ee q.nq 'ssQnoS. STV{ pseipojaxs pEqjo^os-cToo sq^ ^eqq. S.'es ^q-pssod pT:nos eq.ei.S silt * sdbqs sq^ 50 sjnsoio so? aspJo up ssnss-p jo^oa-[-[oo sq^ ^T -^Bqq sq.TUiqns sq *( -B3dTis) qsspeJd EAL[pBH ?o s^e^s *SA .isqioue pue nqss ssuna^ sioxis^ jo 33-^.q.em sq'4 HT ^asm6pnf sqq. ot Su^.ijs^ati ST - ^y 16 — (2) If a riot or unlawful assembly is apprebended or occurs in tbe lEiclnlty of any sbop, a Magistrate o£ any class* who is prssent, may require sucb stiop to be kept closed for su.ch period as be may think necessary;' Provided that, whea any such rlot br unlawfal assembly oceurs. a liceasee shall, in the abgenee of Maglstrate, elose his sbqp iritbout aay erder. (3) Whea any Magistrate issues an order under sub-section (2), be shall forthwitb inform ^be Collector o£ bis action and his reasons tbereof ." The general condit.ion Bo.8 reads as under :- VIII. sbops to toe kept ppen and adequately st.ocked .- (1) Shqps sball be kept open evecy day througbout tbe year unless their temporary or permanent closare bas been authorised by the collector. Such supply o£ llquor or intoxicating drugs as the Collector may consider sufflcient to reeet tbe local requirement stiall be main-bained. SubjeGt to the provigions o£ sect.i.on 38 of the Sust, a.s.Q. to the exceptlons specj.fied in rule XTV, sales be made to all comers on payment at the current rate of sale. Shops for the sale of tari raay be closed during the ralns i.e. from 1st ^une to tbe 14tb Ootolses.^J^. "lln^=L^- (2) Shopsshall remain closed -Eor tbe wbole day on sucfa days as the Collector may announce at the time o£ auctions: (Provided that the Collector, or District Excise o.ffioer, or in their absence a Deputy Collec'tor, duly authorised by the Collector, may require foreign liquor lieensees holding lieenses in Forms F.L.1 and 2 to epen the shops on such days £or sale of foreign liquer to bona fide foreign visitors). (2-a) Subject to sub-rule (2), shops havicg licence in form F.L.1, (F.L.1-A, F.L.1AA), F.L.1-B, F.L.1-C, C.S.2, C.S.2-A, C.S.3, T-1 and restaurant- bar having licence in fora F.L.2 shall remain open from 10 A.M. to 10.50tb P.M. throughout -the year). (5) Sfaops shall also remain closed in any area pr areas for such period as the State Government may in public interest deen neeessary so to