R.S. Narula, J. - Contract for the vend of country liquor shop for the year 1948-49 at Sultanpur Lodhi and some other places in the Punjab was obtained by the petitioner and one Jamna for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The same party had a contract for the vend of country liquor shop during the preceding year. The petitioner and Jamna Dass executed separate bonds with separate sureties half of the amount of the contract. Admittedly the same practice had prevailed with the Excise and Taxation Department for some years prior to that, though it is now alleged in the written statement filed by the State that the said practice was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. Petitioner had admittedly paid out the amount due under the bond executed by him and by his surety. Rupees 12,622/-, however, remained due as the half share of Jamna Dass. According to the stand now taken up by the respondents the liability for payment of this amount was joint and several between Jamna Dass and the petitioner. 2. On October 3, 1962 a notice of which copy is annexure 'A' to the writ petition, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the said amount be not recovered from him on account of the arrears of licence fee for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49. Petitioner filed written objections against the demand. Petitioner's case is that his objections were accepted and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur, directed the Excise and Taxation Officer, Kapurthala, to discharge the petitioner of the liability. The petitioner applied for a copy of the said order. In reply to that request a communication dated January 9, 1963 (copy annexure 'B' to the writ petition) was sent to the petitioner wherein it was stated that the copy applied for by him could not be granted to the petitioner as the order which had been passed was of an executive nature. In the same communication the petitioner was, however, informed that the Excise and Taxation Officer, Kapurthala, had been directed to discharge the petitioner of his liability for the payment of the outstanding dues if the petitioner had made payment of this share on account of arrears for the country liquor shops at Dalla and Sultanpur. Thereafter there was a change in the incumbent of the office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur. On October 4, 1963 the Excise and Taxation Officer, Kapurthala sent to the petitioner a memorandum of which copy is annexure 'C' to the writ petition wherein it was stated that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur Division, had directed that the orders passed by his predecessor regarding the discharge of petitioner's liability for the payment of outstanding dues could not hold good "in the light of decision of the High Court in the case of Shri Bhagat Singh versus Punjab State" and calling upon the petitioner to deposit the requisite amount in the Government treasury. 3. The petitioner did not pay out the amount in question and when he was under the threat of being coerced to pay the amount as arrears of land revenue he filed this writ petition on November 20, 1963 which was admitted on the next day by the Motion Bench (Falshaw C.J. and Harbans Singh, J.). Arrest and recovery proceedings were stayed by the Motion Bench for the duration of the writ petition. 4. Written statement dated nil has been filed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, supported by an affidavit dated January 10, 1964, which has not been sworn before any authority but has merely been attested by a Magistrate. All the relevant facts have been admitted in this written statement but it has been averred that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in the first instance had dealt with the matter only on the executive side but had not passed any judicial order. It has also been admitted that the petitioner did apply for a copy of the order in his favour and that the copy was in fact refused to him. On merits, it has been pleaded that according to the terms and conditions of the auction the liability for the payment of the entire amount of the contract of vend of country liquor was joint and several of the petitioner and his partner and that the amount was rightly being claimed from the petitioner. 5. On March 13, 1964 the petitioner made an application to this Court (C.M. 683 of 1964) in which he prayed that the order dated December 15, 1962 passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur Division, in his favour be brought up before the Court. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents on April 30, 1964, and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties Jindra Lal J. passed the following order on the said application on May 22nd 1964 :- "Heard counsel for the parties. Let the learned counsel for the State have the records mentioned in the petition in Court at the time of hearing". 6. Learned counsel for the State was asked by me yesterday to quote a complete and correct reference of the alleged order of this Court in Bhagat Singh v. State of Punjab, referred to in the impugned communication of the Excise and Taxation Officer. Mr. P.C. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he could not trace any such judgment. After having taken time the learned counsel for the State says that he has not been able to locate any such judgment. 7. State counsel has placed before me file of the department containing the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated December 17, 1962 which reads as follows :- "Shri G.R. Sethi, Advocate, has appeared on behalf Shri Babu Ram and submitted a list of all payments made by Shri Babu Ram. He has also produced the relevant treasury challans which have been checked by the Excise Inspector, Kapurthala and all the payments have been verified. The Excise Inspector raised the point that Shri Baby Ram being a partner in the vends in responsible for the payment of dues, the responsibility being joint and several. Shri Sethi had controverted this point by referring to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and has asserted that from the very conduct of the parties it was quite clear that there was no relationship as partners between Shri Babu Ram and Jamna Dass and this thing was clear from the fact that both these persons submitted separate sureties which were accepted by the department. The E.T.O. Kapurthala should be advised to discharge Shri Babu Ram of his liability for the payment of outstanding dues if he has made payments of his share and he should only tackle the other person Shri Jamna Dass or his descendants. The list along with vouchers was handed over to the Excise Inspector for further necessary action. 8. Mr. P.C. Jain counsel for the petitioner has pressed two points in support of this writ petition. It was firstly contended by him that an order in his favour having been passed by the competent authority, it could not be reversed without giving him a notice. Indeed this is so, but in view of my decision on the second point it would be wholly unnecessary to go into this objection any further. 9. The second and main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first decision (quoted above) was given by the competent authority while exercising quasi-judicial powers and that no statutory authority to review that decision being referred to by the learned counsel for the State, the attempt to treat the said quasi-judicial order as a nullity is without jurisdiction. I asked the State counsel and he has frankly conceded that no subsequent order of any Excise and Taxation Authority is available in the record by which the earlier order might have been varied or reversed. In the written statement, an attempt has been made to describe the earlier order in the petitioner's favour as an 'executive action'. This stand of the State is wholly misconceived. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner heard the Advocate for the petitioner and the Excise Inspector and after hearing them at length and dealing with the matter in detail in a quash-judicial manner decided the dispute between the Excise Department and the petitioner in favour of the latter. Calling the said order an executive decisions seems to be a mere traversity of fact. Once it is held that the earlier order in favour of the petitioner was a quasi-judicial one, it is clear that the Excise Department had no power to reviewing or reverse the same. In fact no order any of any competent authority reviewing or reversing the original order has been produced or relied upon. A Full Bench of this Court in Deep Chand and another v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Jullundur, 1964 Cur. L.J. (Pb.) 128 : 1964 P.L.R. 318, after referring to a contention of the counsel about inherent powers to review, held as follows :- "To concede such a wide power of review would, in my opinion, introduce into judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, disconcerting element of permanent uncertainly and unpredictability tending to give an impression of quasi-judicial lawlessness which I cannot persuade myself to uphold. If Courts do not possess such a wide and sweeping power, it is difficult to accede such a wide power in statutory judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals". 10. After carefully considering all the facts and circumstances of this case I hold that the decision of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner discharging the petitioner of the liability of the amount in dispute was final and that the same not having been set aside by any competent authority in any appropriate proceedings binds the parties. In that view of the matter the impugned demand notice issued to the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and must be set aside. 11. This writ petition is consequently allowed. The impugned demand order against the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are permanently restrained from making the said demand against the petitioner. Petition allowed.