M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) PURSUANT to order dated 9.5.2002, the Excise Superintendent has appeared in person and explained the reasons for filing separate counter -affidavit.
(2.) HEARD the parties. The dispute is actually with regard to selection of site. Admittedly petitioner was the licensee of both the two shops at Simdega being Shop Nos. 1 and 2 for the year 2001 -02. For the year 2002 -03, fresh auction was held in which the petitioner as well the respondent participated in the auction and both were the licensee to deal with the foreign liquor in Simdega.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that licence were granted by the Excise Superintendent for carrying on business in Shop Nos. 1 and 2 while the contention of the private respondent is that in the licence itself it was mentioned that the respondent will carry on his foreign liquor business in Shop No. 1. The contention of the Deputy Commissioner is that the dispute with regard to selection of site is to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner as Collector under the Excise Act and the Excise Superintendent has no jurisdiction to issue any instruction to the licensee to carry on business in a particular shop.;