2005, the Petitioner informed the First Respondent that a State Excise licence is not required for the manufacture, production, sale and trade in Ethanol or denatured spirit and copies of the interim orders referred to earlier were submitted. The Petitioners were informed that their price bid was scheduled to be opened. The first tender came to be cancelled and a fresh tender was floated reiterating the requirement of an endorsement by the State Excise Authorities of the name and dosage of the denaturant used. The Petitioner submitted a bid. On 1st September 2005, the First Respondent enquired of the Petitioner, with reference to the aforesaid tender condition, as to whether in the absence of a valid licence, the Petitioner would be able to obtain an endorsement from the State Excise Authorities of the name and dosage of the denaturant used. By a reply dated 15th September 2005, the Petitioner drew attention to the interim order passed in its petition by this Court and noted that it was not required to have a licence for the manufacture, sale or transport of Ethanol from the State Excise Department. The Petitioner, however, stated that it would be in a position to obtain an endorsement from the State Excise Authorities of the name and dosage of the denaturant used. By a letter dated 5th October 2005, the First Respondent stated that the
