PANNA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. N. Khare, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 4th May, 1993 passed by District Excise Officer, Jaunpur.

(2.) THE petitioner alongwith other persons were the highest bidder in respect of country liquor groups of shops known as Kerakat Group comprising of 24 shops for the excise year 1991-92. THE petitioner in accordance with the Rules 20 (2) (ii) furnished security in form of fixed deposit receipts from Scheduled Bank and pledged the same in favour of the licensing authority which was valid till the final settlement of all the claims. It is alleged that the petitioner paid all the excise dues and is not a defaulter. This fact has been admitted in the counter-affidavit. Since there was no dues against the petitioner, the fixed deposit receipts, pledged by the petitioner, were returned to him by the licensing authority. After lapse of time the District Excise Officer issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to refund the interest accrued on the fixed deposit receipts pledged by the petitioner for the excise year 1991-92. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come up to, this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the strength of later part of Rule 25, argued that the impugned demand has been made in accordance with the Rules, which provides that all interest occurring on fixed deposit shall vest in the Government. In fact this Rule has to be read in the context of rules applicable in the case of settlement of licence for country liquor. This provision will be available to the department only when it is found that the highest bidder has committed default in payment of excise dues. In this view of the matter we do not find substance in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel.