32 It is to be pointed out at this juncture that the impugned order, which is the subject matter of challenge in WP.No.11767/2018 is also not in consonance with the common order dated 26.02.2018 made in WP.Nos.13081 and 15953/2017 for the reason that the objections raised by the petitioner herein despite the opportunity of personal hearing and recording of the statement, have not been objectively considered and adopting a hyper-technical approach, the said objection has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Puducherry. No doubt, after the rejection of the objections, two consequential orders, in favour of the 4th respondent came to be passed, the last of such order dated 13.06.2018, has been communicated to the 4th respondent alone and insofar as the earlier communication dated 07.06.2018, it was between the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Puducherry and the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Mahe, with a copy marked to the Deputy Commissioner [Excise], Karaikal and as such, it is not necessary on the part of the petitioner to make a challenge to the said orders. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has also placed reliance upon the order dated 23.02.2018 made in WP.No.4067/2018 [R.Senthilkumar Vs. Union Territory of Puducherry represented by the Commissioner, Department of Excise, Puducherry and another],, wherein, a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from re-establishing or re-locating or grant a license to liquor shop at Madukkarai village, Puducherry or its adjoining area. However, the points urged herein, have not been made in the said writ petition and the said writ petition came to be disposed on the facts of the said case and as such, it is distinuguishable.
