viii) As pointed out earlier, the second respondent, in the impugned order has given reasons (quoted above) for rejecting the Application for shifting, which is found to be just and proper. Unfortunately, the subsequent incumbent, who had become the Deputy Commissioner, appears to have taken contrary stands in the counter affidavit filed by him on 05.10.2016. This cannot be ignored as an inadvertent mistake, but, there is a suspicion that looms large, that such inconsistent averments are presumably to support the stand of the petitioner. This is sufficient to reject the counter affidavit in toto, and in particular, the averments set out in para No.4. However, in para Nos.7 and 8, the second respondent has accepted that the place, where, the Shop is presently located, is an objectionable place. The petitioner would state that, about 300 meters from his Shop, there is another FL-2 licensee, viz., M/s.New Land Hotel Pvt. Ltd., and the same has not been questioned/objected to. The second respondent has explained in his counter affidavit that, it is a Star Category Hotel, and it does not infringe the Distance Rules and different norms have been laid for issue of such Bar licence.
