Article 166 authentication and competent authority approval were essential; liquor licence grant failed without a valid Chief Commissioner order.

Grant of the L-2 liquor licence was invalid because the record did not show an order made or concurred in by the Chief Commissioner, the competent authority. The inter-departmental letter relied on as approval merely stated that the Chief Commissioner was pleased to approve the licence; it did not itself constitute the Chief Commissioner's order or bear the authenticated form required to attract the constitutional presumption under Article 166. Approval by other officers, including the Excise Commissioner, Finance Secretary and a Chief Minister's endorsement, could not cure the absence of a valid order by the competent authority, so the grant was vitiated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the grant of the L-2 liquor licence was valid when the record did not show that the Chief Commissioner, the competent authority, had made or concurred in the order, and whether the letter conveying approval could be treated as a duly authenticated order under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The record showed that the Excise Commissioner and the Finance Secretary dealt with the matter, and that the Chief Minister recorded an endorsement, but it did not show any order made or concurred in by the Chief Commissioner. The document relied upon by the respondents was only an inter-departmental communication stating that the Chief Commissioner was pleased to approve the grant of the licence; it did not itself purport to be the Chief Commissioner's order or bear the form of authentication required to attract the constitutional presumption. The Court held that the approval could not be equated with the order itself and that the absence of a valid order by the competent authority vitiated the grant.

Conclusion: The grant of the L-2 licence was invalid, and the challenge succeeded.

---