JOGENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India challenges an order dated 1st January, 1986, passed by the State of U. P. and a further writ directing the Excise Commissioner to refund the licence-fee of Rs. 50,000 with interest.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit. THE petitioner's contention that it was only after the grant of FL-2 licence that he came to know that his partners have included his name in FL-5 licence, has not been denied by the respondents. THEir case is that neither Section 34 nor Section 35 of the Excise Act, will apply because the Excise Commissioner did not cancel the licence and, in fact, the petitioner surrendered the licence himself and it was consequently determined. It is contended that Section 36 of the U. P Excise Act clearly bars the right of the petitioner to claim compensation and there is no provision for the refund of the licence fee.