Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) IN response to the invitation of applications for grant of licences for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)/beer for the year 2009 -2010, the petitioner applied for issuance of license for such liquor shop at Nokha, Bikaner; and the lottery having been drawn in his favour, a sanction order came to be issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2009 in response whereof he deposited the requisite amount with the respondents. However, a complaint came to be made against the petitioner that an FIR bearing number 57/2004 had been lodged against him at Police Station, Nokha for offences under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act ('the Act of 1950') and Sections 341 and 382/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and challan had been filed; and, thus, he was ineligible to be granted the license in question. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the District Excise Officer, Bikaner ('the DEO') issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.03.2009 proposing to cancel the licence granted to him particularly with reference to the Condition No. 1 (Gha) of the application form for issuance of the license whereby the person against whom any case of serious offence under the Act of 1950 or the provisions mentioned in Section 34 of the Act of 1950 or under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered or he had been convicted thereunder was declared ineligible. 3. For ready reference, the eligibility conditions as stated in the format of the application could be read as under: Varnacular Text In response to the notice issued by the DEO, the petitioner submitted a reply on 30.03.2009 with the submissions that he had falsely been implicated in the said FIR No. 57/2004 whereunder five persons including himself had been challaned. The petitioner contended that he had not been convicted and the matter was still pending in the Court; and that the challan having been filed under Sections 341, 382/34 IPC and 19/54 of the Act of 1950, it was not a matter of serious offence so as to render him ineligible. 4. The DEO, however, referred to the aforementioned Clause 1 (Gha) of the application form and found that the petitioner misled the Department and attempted obtaining license by false declaration. The DEO, thus, proceeded to cancel the sanction issued in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 30.03.2009. 5. The aforesaid order dated 30.03.2009 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWP No. 2762/2009 wherein, after making an interim order dated 01.04.2009 to the effect that the license, if granted by the Department, would remain subject to the decision of the writ petition, this Court heard and decided the writ petition on 02.04.2009. This Court took note of the fact that in relation to the said Condition No. 1 (Gha) in the format of the application, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Excise Department had forwarded a communication dated 22.03.2007 to the District Excise Officers stating clarification that reads as under: Varnacular Text 6. This Court found that at the time of considering the applications, the aforesaid communication dated 22.03.2007 was not taken into consideration; and, therefore, it was considered just and proper to remit the matter to the District Excise Officer concerned with the directions that he would consider all the applications afresh and particularly decide the application of the petitioner afresh while taking into consideration the aforesaid communication. The petitioner was directed to appear before the District Excise Officer on 08.04.2009 and to make submissions by filing representation and apprising the District Excise Officer with regard to his claim under the above clarification issued by the Excise Department; and the matter was ordered to be decided afresh by 10.04.2009. This Court further directed status quo as then existing to be maintained and made it clear that after passing of the order, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. 7. After passing the aforesaid order dated 02.04.2009 in CWP No. 2762/2009, the petitioner appeared before the District Excise Officer, Bikaner on 08.04.2009 and submitted that the aforesaid FIR No. 57/2004 was lodged against two unknown persons and he was falsely got arrested in that relation; and after showing false recovery, a baseless charge -sheet was filed against him. The petitioner submitted that he was not at all related with the recovery of the articles in the said case and there were no allegations against him of snatching away the liquor or the vehicle. The petitioner contended that no matter was pending against him for any serious offence. 8. The learned District Excise Officer, Bikaner referred to the fact that in the aforesaid case under FIR No. 57/2004, 195 pouches of country liquor were recovered and challan had been filed under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950 and Sections 341 and 382/34 IPC. The learned DEO observed that the nature of offence could be examined only from the facts of the particular case and in relation to the petitioner, recovery of 195 pouches of country liquor was itself indicative of serious nature offence contravening Sections 34 and 54 of the Act of 1950 and causing revenue loss. The learned DEO again referred to the aforesaid clause putting ineligibility on certain persons to apply for grant of license and observed that the petitioner, despite being aware of the aforesaid Condition No. 1 (Gha) made the application while concealing the facts and made a false declaration and attempted obtaining license while misleading the Department. Thus, finding the conduct of the petitioner seriously questionable and license having been obtained in a fraudulent manner, the DEO considered it to be a serious matter and maintained his order dated 30.03.2009 cancelling the license of the petitioner. 9. Seeking to question the aforesaid order dated 09.04.2009, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. It has strenuously been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner with reference to Section 34 of the Act of 1950 and the conditions of license as stated in the format appended to the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 ('the Rules of 1956') that the learned DEO has proceeded to cancel the license on the alleged ground of false information though the Act of 1950 or the Rules of 1956 do not envisage cancellation of license on such a ground. Learned Counsel further attempted to argue that it had been a matter of the petitioner having been implicated in false complaint but in any case, he was not involved in any serious offence so as to be ineligible as an applicant. It is submitted that the District Excise Officer has not examined the law applicable to the case nor even the meaning and purport of the clarification issued by the Excise Department and has maintained the order of cancellation of license in a wholly arbitrary manner. 10. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and does not merit admission. 11. In the first place, it maybe pointed out that the argument as sought to be developed before this Court that under the Act of 1950 or the Rules of 1956, a license cannot be cancelled on the ground of furnishing of false information, apart from being of no worth or substance, was not suggested by the petitioner whether in the earlier writ petition or even before the DEO, who had passed the order dated 09.04.2009 pursuant to the writ issued by this Court. In fact, such a ground has not been set forth in specific terms even in the present petition. The petitioner in the second round of this litigation does not appear justified in attempting to make out an entirely new ground; and the submissions as made before this Court, of want of authority with the DEO to cancel the license, deserve to be rejected on this count alone. 12. Moreover, even on merits, such a contention, of want of authority with the District Excise Officer to cancel the license for furnishing of false information, remains fundamentally baseless. It inheres in the very process of the grant of privilege by the State to deal in the excisable articles that the applicant is an eligible person and has not been rendered ineligible to hold such license. When the guidelines and conditions forming an integral part of the application clearly stated the eligibility conditions and specifically pointed out the persons who were ineligible, every fact related thereto or likely to have any bearing on the eligibility was required to be disclosed. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not disclose the factum of pendency of criminal case against him. As to whether the case pending against him amounted to serious offence or not so as to attract the bar as contained in Clause 1 (Gha) would have been a matter of consideration only when the petitioner had made true and faithful disclosure in his application about the factum of pendency of criminal case. The petitioner could not have concluded in his own favour that the accusation against him was not correct or that such an accusation did not amount to a serious offence. Such an aspect was definitely for the authority to consider, of course, in accordance with law but such an occasion would have arisen only if the petitioner would have made true and frank disclosure of the facts. 13. This Court finds unexceptionable the observations of the learned DEO that concealment of such facts was itself indicative of fraudulent conduct of the petitioner aimed at misleading the Department. 14. The suggestion as made that furnishing of false information is not a ground for cancellation of license merely with reference to Section 34 of the Act of 1950 and Clause 8 of the format of license remains incorrect and incomplete too. Apart from Section 34, Section 35 of the Act of 1950 indicates the powers with the concerned authority to cancel the license for any reason other than those specified in Section 34; the fundamental difference being that for cancellation under Section 34, the holder of license would not be entitled to any compensation nor to refund of any fees paid whereas under Section 35, license could be cancelled with provision for refund of the fees after deducting the amount due to the Govt. In fact, the earlier order dated 30.03.2009 had been made by the DEO while directing refund of the license fees. 15. Further, Rule 76 of the Rules of 1956 precisely authorises the authority granting license to cancel, suspend or modify the same if the license had been obtained by fraud or upon the licensee been guilty of violation of any condition of license or contravention of any provision of the Act of 1950 or any notification, order or rule issued under the Act of 1950. Rule 76 of the Rules of 1956 reads as under: 76. Cancellation, modification and suspension of licences - The authority granting a licence under these rules may cancel, suspend or modify the licence - (a)to rectify clerical mistakes; (b)If the licence has been obtained by fraud; or (c)if the licensee has been guilty of the violation of a condition of his licence or the contravention of the provision of the Act or any notification order or rule issued under the Act. 16. It is, thus, incorrect to suggest that even when obtained by fraud, a license cannot be cancelled by the authorities. 17. Apart from the fundamental shortcoming in the conduct of the petitioner that he chose to withhold the relevant information while making the application, even the suggestions as made on behalf of the petitioner that the accusation wherefor he is facing trial does not relate to a serious offence, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be accepted; and the observations as made by the learned DEO that it were a matter of serious offence appear to be correct. The allegations against the petitioner in the said case appear to be of his being involved in unauthorised dealing with country liquor and 195 pouches of country liquor had been recovered. This Court would not like to make any further comments in relation to the said matter as the case is said to be pending trial and it would ultimately be for the Trial Court to decide on the same but it cannot be said that the offence the petitioner is accused of is trivial in nature so as to be ignored for the purpose of condition No. l (Gha) supra. The order as passed by the learned DEO appears to be justified and calls for no interference. 18. It may, in the passing, be observed that an order passed by the DEO is, ordinarily, an appealable order before the Excise Commissioner. However, this writ petition has been considered and is being rejected on merits instead of relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy particularly for the reason that the order dated 09.04.2009 was made pursuant to the order earlier passed by this Court in CWP No. 2762/2009 and further for the reason that the license in question was to commence from 01.04.2009 and so also looking to the nature of the questions involved. 19. The result of the discussion aforesaid is that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief against the order dated 09.04.2009; and this writ petition does not merit admission. 20. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. ;