Soumitra Pal, J.
1. The petitioner No. 1 is Co-operative Society and the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the Society. Pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications for grant of Licence of Foreign Liquor (OFF) and Country Spirit in the District of Hooghly, the petitioner made an application for a liquor shop in Pandua Bazar and in its vicinity. The proposed liquor shop at Pandua Bazar was reserved for firms/Societies formed by unemployed youth registered with the employment exchange. According to the Explanation in the notification dated 4.2.2000 containing the order (for short 'the order') unemployed youth meant any person of or above the age of 21 years but not above 37 years. A lottery among the applicants was conducted. The Society secured the first position in a panel of three. Thereafter, the petitioner came to learn that an objection was raised in respect of granting of said licence as one of its members had crossed the age bar of 37 years. The petitioners received a letter dated 28.12.2001 from the respondent No.5. The petitioners replied to the said letter. However, the respondent No.4 by order dated 25.5.2002 rejected the claim of the petitioner, as the petitioner was found unfit and observation was made that the respondent No.8 herein should be given the opportunity to open FL (OFF) shop if not otherwise disqualified. Being dissatisfied the petitioners moved the writ petition being W.P. No.9106(W) of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order passed and with the direction upon the respondent No. 3 herein to decide the matter after hearing and by passing a fresh order. Directions were issued to decide the point in respect of the age. It was directed that if any order is passed in favour of the petitioners such parties whose rights might be affected should be heard.
2. The respondent No.3 pursuant to such order heard the petitioners and rejected the application of the petitioners. Against such rejection the petitioners moved an application being W.P. No. 16982(W) of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction upon the petitioners to file an appeal as there was an alternative remedy. The petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2. heard the appeal. By an order dated 18.7.2003 the said appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioners have moved the instant writ application. The writ petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs. The prayer which are relevant are as follows :
'a) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to show cause why they should not be commanded to issue licence in favour of the petitioners.
b) A writ in the nature of certiorari commanding thereof and to certify and to bring before this Hon'ble Court all relevant records and after hearing the cause if any shown quash them all.
c) Ad interim order of injunction directing the respondents not to issue licence to Second Pannelled candidate, until the case is disposed of...........'
4. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in theClause 3 of the order in the notification fixing the age limit of unemployed youth is arbitrary, irrational having no nexus with the main purpose of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (for short 'Excise Act') and the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for short 'Co-operative Societies Act') and is ultra vires and void. The petitioner No. 1 being a Co-operative Society is a separate legal entity, a juristic person, it can sue and be sued. Thus, the petitionerNo.1 applied for the grant of licence independently and the notification containing the order relating to the age bar is inapplicable so far as the petitioners are concerned. Said notification containing the order issued by the Excise Department can never alter the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the saidClause 3 of the order containing the notification is void.
5. It was pointed out to Mr. Banerjee that though submission was made challenging the vires of the Explanation to theClause 3 of the order, no ground and prayer whatsoever has been taken in the writ petition in support of such contentions.
6. Mr. Debashis Kar Gupta appearing along with Mr. Supriya Roychowdhury for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 pointed out that the contentions of the writ petitioner are not tenable in law as the notification containing the order dated 4.2.2000 having a special provision regarding unemployed youth was challenged in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected such prayer and appeal being No. MAT 321 of 2001, West Bengal Foreign Liquor (OFF) Shop Owners' Association & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. was preferred . The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 21.2.2001 declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal was dismissed.
7. Mr. Banerjee, in reply, submitted that in the supplementary affidavit submissions have been made, those should be taken as grounds and prayersshould be allowed accordingly.
8. I am unable to accept such an argument. If a challenge is made regarding vires of any Act, Rule, Notification or Order there should be specific grounds and prayers should be made accordingly. In the absence of such ground and prayer in the petition or in the supplementary affidavit, the submission of Mr. Banerjee is not tenable.
9. Mr. Banerjee assailing the order under challenge submitted that though one of the members was over-aged, at present there are ten members and all are within the age limit of 21 years to 37 years as prescribed by the authorities in the said notification and hence licence should be granted. Relying on thejudgments of the Supreme Court in Babaji Kondaji Garad & Ors. vs . Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in : [1984]1SCR767 , Keshavji Ravji and Co. & Ors. vs . Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in : [1990]183ITR1(SC) ; Ex. Capt. K, Balasuhramanian & Ors. vs . State of' Tamil Nadu & Anr., reported in : (1991)IILLJ277SC and Rajender Singhvs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in : [2001]2SCR1108 it was submitted that circular or order cannot override the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act.
10. Mr. Kar Gupta in reply submitted that while making the application, the petitioner should have furnished correct particulars regarding the age of its members and in not doing so infringed Note 3 appearing in the form of the application. Referring toClause 8(a) of the notification it was submitted that the Collector is empowered to make an enquiry regarding the particulars furnished and underClause 8(b) if first applicant is found unfit, the offer in turn shall be passed on to the second applicant. Had the members of the Cooperative Society at the time of making the application been within the age of 21 years and 37 years the application could have been considered. However, since the application contained inaccurate particulars it was liable to be rejected and the respondent No. 2 was justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Moreover, had the applications of Co-operative Societies having over-aged members been accepted it would have frustrated the object of the order under the notification.
11. Ms. Mita Mukherjee appearing along with Mr. Debdulal Haider for the respondent No.8 submitted that the petitioner applied for the (Off) Shop licence knowing fully well the guidelines to be followed. Not having done so, its application is liable to be rejected and the respondent No. 8 - second in the lottery should be granted the licence. Relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the State of West Bengal & Anr. vs . Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors., reported in : 2002(81)ECC228 it was submitted that the judgement covers the issue. The notification containing the order dated 4.2.2000 is just and proper. The respondent No.2 was justified in passing the order dated 18.7.2003. Submission was made that the contents of the order are within the delegated power of the Government and the order has been notified in the Official Gazette as required underSection 88 of the Excise Act. The order reflects the policy of the State Government which is in conformity with the Constitutional obligation and has the same force as a rule which the State Government is empowered to make underSections 85 and 86. It was submitted that the respondent 8, second in the panel, should be granted the licence.
12. After hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates I find that the writ petition is without any merit .Being aware of the 'Explanation' in the order under the notification dated 4.2.2000 and the conditions appended to the application for licence, the petitioner made the application. The fact that the petitioner was well aware of the conditions is demonstrated from the averments by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit affirmed on 19th September, 2003 (for short 'affidavit'). In the affidavit there is an admission that at the time of making the application one of its member was over-aged 'but at present there are 10 members (as per statutory requirement) in the Co-operative Society and all are within 21 years to 37 years. Therefore, all members at present are within the age limit as proscribed by the respondent authorities' - which goes to show that the application was not according to the requirements and was in violation of Note 3 in the application which is as under:
'If any information or particulars furnished in the application is subsequently found to be false, inaccurate or incomplete the licence, if any, granted on the basis of application, will be liable to instant withdrawal without prejudice to the other action that may be taken.'
13. Moreover, under Clause 8(a) of the order under notification it has been stipulated that an enquiry shall be made in respect of the particulars furnished in the application and underClause 8(b) 'if, on enquiry, the number one in the panel is found to be fit to hold an excise licence, the Collector shall offer the licence to him. In case the number one is found unfit, the offer in turn shall be passed on to the second person if he is fit. If the second person is also found unfit, the offer will go to the third applicant, if he is fit.'
14. Thus, Note 3 and Clause 8 lay down that an application shall be vitiated if incorrect particulars are furnished. There is no scope for any subsequent correction as sought to be attempted as stated in the affidavit.
15. Further the challenge to the order as made out in the grounds is vague. The 'Grounds' are as under :
'I. For that the whole action of the respondents are mala fide.
II. For that the whole action of the respondents are illegal.
III. For that the respondents acted illegally in not considering the case of the petitioners.
IV. For that the whole action of the respondents are unsustainable in law.
V. For that the whole action of the respondents are bad in law as well as in fact.'
16. A perusal of the grounds shows no specific challenge whatsoever is thrown to the order which is sought to be challenged.
17. Moreover, the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors. (supra) and thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.A.T. No. 321 of 2001 (supra) cover the issue and the judgements cited by Mr. Banerjee are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
18. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
19. Urgent xerox certified copy of the judgment and order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.