THAKUR PRASAD SAO AYODHYA PRASAD RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE:STATE OF BIHAR:STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ten appeals against two judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raise some common questions of law. They have been argued together, and we shall examine them in this common judgment. Civil Appeals Nos. 824-827 of 1975 arise out of a common judgment dated January 2, 1975 in a bunch of civil writ petitions; Civil Appeals Nos. 819-823 of 1975 arise out of a common judgment dated March 15, 1975 in another bunch of civil writ petitions; while Civil Appeal No. 1105 of 1975 is directed against the aforesaid judgment dated January 2, 1975 by which the civil writ petition giving rise to it was also disposed of by the High Court along with the other petitions. Certificates of fitness have been granted for all the appeals. There is no controversy in regard to some of the basic facts and they are quite sufficient for the disposal of the appeals.

(2.) A sale notice was published by the authorities concerned for the auction of licenses to open country liquor shops in Singhbhum district with effect from April 1, 1966, including an outstill shop at Bharbharia. Appellant Ayodhya Prasad gave the highest bid which was knocked down in his favour, and he deposited two months' license fee in advance at the rate of Rs. 3, 650/- per month. He applied on March 22, 1966 to the Kolahan Superintendent of Singhbhum, of settle a piece of land for establishing an outstill shop at Bharbharia, but the application was rejected on September 27, 1966 because of the objection raised by some members of the District Consultative Committee. The villagers of Bharbharia also opposed the opening of the outstill shop. The shop could not therefore be established there. The appellant however obtained a piece of land in village Chittimitti and applied on July 30, 1966 for permission to open the outstill shop there. This was allowed and the appellant claimed that he began to collect the necessary material but a mob forcibly removed the building and the distillation material. He filed a report with the police about the incident. The approval for opening the outstill shop at Chittimitti was however withdrawn on October 6, 1966 and the appellant was asked to pay the monthly license fee for the period April 1, 1966 to January, 1967. He denied his liability to pay the fee and claimed a refund of the money which had been deposited by him. His case was recommended by the Collector for remittance of the license fee amounting to Rs. 43,800/- for the entire year 1966-67. He also made an application to the Commissioner of Excise for refund of the deposit of Rs. 7,300/- and for payment of compensation for loss of anticipated profits and damages, but the application was rejected. It appears that the appellant went on bidding at the bids for the subsequent three years, and laid similar claims for refund and damages, but to no avail. He then filed the bunch of writ petitions referred to above, for quashing the demand notices, but they have been dismissed as aforesaid by the High Court's judgment dated January 2, 1975. Civil Appeal No. 825 relates to the bid for 1966-67, Civil Appeal No. 824 relates to the bid for 1967-68, while Civil Appeals Nos. 826 and 827 relate to the bids for 1968-69 and 1969-70. These may be said to be group 'A' appeals.

(3.) Civil Appeals Nos. 819-823 of 1975 relate to the applications of appellants Thakur Prasad Sao and others for reduction of the license fees for outstill liquor shops at Gua, Noamandi, Kiriburu, Andhari, Goiekera, Patajai and Dangusposi for 1974-75. In these cases the licensees were T. P. Sao or his relations or employees. They claimed that they incurred a loss of Rs. 55,874.79 at Gua of Rs. 2,66,651.45 at Noamandi, of Rs. 39,389.53 at Kiriburu, of Rs. 35,169.40 at Andhari, of Rupees 11,649.87 at Goiekera, of Rupees 11,705.95 at Patajai and of Rupees 11,657.21 at Dangusposi.