B RAGHAVENDRA Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had obtained lease of retail vend of liquor for the year 1992-93. According to him, because of some public disturbances, he could not operate his shops in the areas assigned to him as is evident from Annexures-A and B. According to him, because of the said closure for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, he had sustained substantial financial losses. Accordingly, he has come up before this Court with a prayer to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant pro rata deduction in the rate of kist amount for the said period of closure.

(2.) A prayer similar to the present one had already been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of rajamallaiah C. and Others v State of Karnataka and Others in para 23 thereof, it has been held as follows: "unforeseen events which prevented vend of liquor will not alter the character of price paid/agreed to be paid for purchase of privilege. The petitioners have stipulated to pay lumpsum amounts as the price for exclusive privilege for vend of liquor. The amount agreed to be paid is considered as the value of that right and will not depend upon loss or profit. Licensee can enjoy the privilege so long as the conditions and restrictions imposed are complied with. Terms of contract indicate that they were aware of such eventualities. Person who entered into a contract with eyes wide open must accept the burden of the contract along with its benefits. The dictum of lord Atkinson in matthey v Curling, which reads thus:

(3.) THE said enunciation of law has been followed with approval by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girish and Others v State of Karnataka and Others.