SHIV KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties at length. In this appeal the appellant has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 13-8-2002 in CWJC No. 7075 of 2002. The High Court while allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 herein quashed the letter of the Collector dated 13-2-2002 recommending the grant of one additional licence for wholesale vending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (hereinafter referred to as "IMFL") for the district of Begusarai on the ground that the same was not made in accordance with Rule 45 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") framed under Section 89 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It held that since the recommendation made by the Collector was not in accordance with the Rules, the recommendation could not be acted upon and accepted by the Commissioner by his order dated 18-3-2002.

(3.) The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The Collector of Begusarai sent a proposal to the Excise Commissioner for sanction of one additional wholesale liquor licence in favour of the appellant herein vide his proposal dated 22-1-2002. The said proposal of the Collector was turned down by the Commissioner and returned to him since in the opinion of the Commissioner the Collector was not justified in making a recommendation for an additional licence for any particular person. He directed that a proposal may be made for sanctioning an additional wholesale licence looking to the demand and public need justifying such additional wholesale licence. Thereafter, the Collector, Begusarai made another recommendation dated 13-2-2002 for the sanction of one additional wholesale licence for the sale of IMFL for the district of Begusarai. In this letter addressed to the Excise Commissioner, he stated that by grant of one additional wholesale licence there will be augmentation of licence revenue in the district of Begusarai and the same was also conducive to promote competition which could increase the collection of revenue in view of the increase in the consumption of IMFL. The respondent No.5 herein was the only wholesale licence holder for IMFL in the district of Begusarai. The husband of the aforesaid respondent was granted such licence in the year 1984 which licence stood transferred to respondent No.5 upon his death. The respondent No.5 filed a petition before the Excise Commissioner, which was registered as Excise Case No. 16 of 2002, against the proposal of the Collector for sanction of one additional wholesale licence for IMFL. The Excise Commissioner by his order dated 18-3-2002 rejected the objection of respondent No.5 which is annexed as annexure P-2. It appears from the said Order that he called for the comments of the Collector, Begusarai, as also the relevant administrative file from the excise office and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case of the grant of an additional licence for wholesale trade in IMFL was justified, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 45 of the Rules. He observed that under the aforesaid Rules an additional licence may be granted considering the demand of the area in question. It appears that before the Excise Commissioner respondent No.5 contended that since she had been the sole wholesale licence for the district of Begusarai since 1984 and had been working with diligence and executing her work satisfactorily giving huge amount to the State by way of excise revenue, there was no need to grant an additional wholesale licence.