WP(C) 2079/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Judicial intervention has been sought for in the exercise of this Court’ s extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to invalida te the order dated 26.3.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Lakhimpur District settling the No.7 Dhakuakhana C.S. Shop in favour of the respondent No .3. A direction for settling the said shop in favour of the writ petitioner has also been sought for. I have heard Mr NK Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms S S eal, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department, Govt. of Assam. For the order proposed to be passed it is considered inessential to issu e formal notice to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Briefly stated, the factual preface can be traced to a Tender Notice dat ed 17.11.2009 issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Lakhimpur, Assam soliciting tenders for settlement of Country Spirit Shops (for short, hereinafte r referred to as ’CSS’) by auction through sealed tender system for the term 1.4 .2010 to 31.3.2013 in the district of Lakhimpur. The petitioner and the responde nt No.3 offered their candidature for No.7 Dhakuakhana C.S. Shop (for short, her einafter referred to as ’the Shop’ as well). On the completion of the process th e Shop was settled with the petitioner on 20.2.2010 by an order to that effect o f the aforementioned State authority. The respondent No.3 assailed this settleme nt before the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Board’) in appeal registered as 2E(L)/2010. Similar appeals were file d by two other unsuccessful tenderers against the settlement of equal number of C.S. Shops of the same district which were registered as Case No. 1E(L)/2010 and 3E(L)/2010. The Board after hearing the parties by its judgment and order dated 18.3.2010 set aside the settlement of all the three shops including the one per taining to No.7 Dhakuakhana C.S. Shop made in favour of petitioner and directed the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Lakhimpur to reconvene the Advisory Commi ttee for settlement of the said shops afresh for the same term. It was thereafte r that on completion of the process as ordered by the Board, the shop involved i n the instant proceeding was settled in favour of the respondent No.3 for the af oresaid term i.e. 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2013. The petitioner has admitted that the re spondent No.3 has since taken over the charge of the shop and is running the sam e since then till date. According to the petitioner, though such settlement was made in favour o f the respondent No.3, he has not been able to run the same in terms of the Assa m Excise Rule, 1945 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules’) and that a report to that effect has also been submitted by the Inspector of Excise, Dha kuakhana after making periodical inspections thereof. While contending that insp ite of the above the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Lakhimpur has not taken any action to cancel the settlement, the petitioner has further questioned his ( respondent No.3) eligibility in obtaining the shop as at all relevant times he w as a student of graduation course in Rengram Subansiri College and, therefore, c ould not be construed to be an educated unemployed youth . The petitioner has further stated that meanwhile Smti Purabi Saiia, the appellan t in Appeal Case No. 1E(L)/2010 before the Board had approached this Court with WP(C) No. 2085/2010 challenging the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by it (Board) in this appeal and that this Court vide its judgment and order dated 31.3.2010 h ad been pleased to annul the aforesaid decision of the Board and quashed as well all orders consequential thereto. In the petitioner’s comprehension this verdic t of this Court amounts to effacement of the judgment and order dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Board in all the appeals and that, therefore, as a consequence the reto his settlement in respect of No.7 Dhakuakhana C.S. Shop stands revived. As inspite of the above the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Lakhimpur has not ye t cancelled the settlement granted in favour of the respondent No.3 and permitte d him to operate the shop, he is before this Court seeking redress. While Mr Baruah has reiterated the above, Ms Seal has urged that the determinati on made by this Court in WP(C) No. 2085/2010 being essentially confined to the f acts involved in Appeal Case No.1E(L)/2010, the writ petitioner’s grievance is m isplaced and, therefore, the challenge ought to be negated in limine. The pleadings and the documents available as well as the submissions made have b een duly analyzed. Admittedly, the writ petitioner’s present challenge is based on his understanding of the judgment and order dated 31.3.2010 passed by this Co urt in WP(C) No. 2085/2010. He was not a party in this proceeding. The writ peti tioner therein was the settlement holder of another shop who was prejudicially a ffected by the order dated 18.3.2010 of the Board rendered in Appeal Case No. 1E (L)/2010. As referred to hereinabove, the appeal in which the Board had annulled the settlement in favour of the writ petitioner was numbered as 3E(L)/2010. The petitioner has till date not questioned the sustainability of the judgment and order dated 18.3.2010 rendered in this appeal thereby invalidating his settlemen t of No.7 Dhakuakhana C.S. Shop. A plain reading of the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 31.3.2010 as extracted hereinbelow demonstrates the fa llacy of the petitioner’s notion of being advantageously covered thereby. In view of what has been discussed herein above, the impugned order dated 18.3 .2010 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) passed by the learned Chairman, Assam Bo ard of Revenue, Guwahati in Case No. 1E(L)/2010 filed U/S 9(1) of the Assam Exci se Act, 1910, is hereby quashed and set aside and all other orders issued conseq uent to the impugned order dated 18.3.2010 shall also stand quashed. . The above quote demonstrates in unambiguous terms that the contents ther eof are relatable exclusively to the judgment and order dated 18.3.2010 of the B oard rendered in Appeal Case No. 1E(L)/2010 and all orders consequential thereto . Having regard to the contour of the challenge before this court in WP(C) No. 2 085/2010 it is incomprehensible that it was intended that the determination made therein would automatically stand extended qua other appeals involving differen t sets of litigating parties. The text of the extract contains no indication to permit the interpretation as is sought to be provided by the writ petitioner. Hi s plea that the judgment and order dated 31.3.2010 of this Court comprehends eff acement of the decision dated 18.3.2010 of the Board passed in all the appeals i s, thus, misconceived. In this view of the matter coupled with the absence of any challenge by the writ petitioner to the judgment and order dated 18.3.2010 of the Board rende red in Appeal Case No. 3E(L)/2010 pertaining to his shop, the impugnment made he rein lacks in substance. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.