SITA RAM SHEOHAREY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Insofar as the litigation is concerned, tt is terminal after the decision of the Supreme Court dated 17th September, 1996 when the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court at Allahabad dated 23rd November, 1983 were dismissed. The issue related to the grant of the licences for wholesale vend of the Indian made foreign liquor in Form FL 2 on payment of fixed fee in accordance with the U. P. Excise Manual so framed under the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910. The licences were effective from 1st April. 1993 to 31st March. 1994. Two and half months after the licences had been granted, i.e., a contract between the licencees and the State of Uttar Pradesh was complete, a notification dated 25th May. 1983 was issued required the licensees to pay. assessed fee. in addition to licence fee. The licence fee had already been paid and deposited. This action under the notification was resisted by the petitioners by several writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed by the judgment dated 23rd November, 1983. The Division Bench held that :

(2.) The Division Bench, in effect, held that the licences granted to the petitioners will hold for the duration granted and that no assessed fee was to be realised. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. The appeals of the State of Uttar Pradesh were dismissed by the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17th September. 1996. In between the assessee fee which had been realised. became the subject-matter of directions by the Supreme Court that this assessed fee would be refunded. The refund was to be made with interest at the rate of 18%.

(3.) The State of Uttar Pradesh did not accept the judgment on the special leave petitions being dismissed as final. A review application was filed. The review application of the State of Uttar Pradesh was rejected by the Supreme Court on 28th January, 1997. The refund which was ordered by the Supreme Court was not being honoured by the State of Uttar Pradesh with the result that the petitioners complained to the Supreme Court by a Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 450-451 of 1997, Bharat Kochar and another v. G. P. Verma and others, that after they had "succeeded before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions and yet another attempt to review the judgment did not succeed the direction of the Supreme Court to refund the amount is not being adhered to. Notices were issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh on this contempt petition. Notices were discharged on an undertaking given on behalf of the State. The order regarding this undertaking on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh Is dated 1st December. 1998. Not satisfied with the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the review application, the State of Uttar Pradesh also filed a clarification application dated 28th May. 1997. This clarification application was, in effect, a second review petition, not entertained and was consigned by a communication of the Supreme Court registry dated 28th July. 1997. For the State of Uttar Pradesh the controversy was not over even now.