As per case facts, the High Court had quashed the Collector's recommendation for granting an additional wholesale license for Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), citing non-compliance with Rule 45 of ... the Bihar and Orissa Excise Rules. The existing sole wholesale license holder (Respondent No. 5) had challenged the Collector's recommendation through various legal channels, including a revision petition to the Board of Revenue and a writ petition to the High Court, which ultimately allowed her plea, leading to this appeal. The question arose whether the Excise Commissioner's sanction of an additional wholesale license, based on the Collector's recommendation, was invalid due to non-adherence to Rule 45 of the Rules. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's conclusion was unjustified. It clarified that the Act and Rules do not prescribe a specific format for the Collector's recommendation and that the final decision rests with the Commissioner. The Commissioner had diligently reviewed all relevant materials, including the Collector's comments and administrative records, before approving the additional license. The Court held that even a technical defect or omission in the Collector's initial letter would not invalidate the license, given the Commissioner's comprehensive review and the clear justification based on increased demand and the need for competition. Thus, the requirements of the Act and Rule 45 were deemed met, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.