MANGALSA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal. His suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh and the Collector, Dhar for cancellation of a certificate filed in the office of Collector Dhar by the District Excise Officer Dhar, Madhya Bharat, for the recovery of Rs. 36,255 -15 -0, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Dhar. The nature of the plaintiff's claim, the defence set up by the defendants and the circumstances leading to the filing of the present suit may be briefly stated as follows.

(2.) THE plaintiff, who was an ex -excise contractor in the erstwhile Dhar State had taken contract for running for liquor shops in the town of Dhar for the year 1947 -48 in respect of the period from 1.10.1947 to 30.9.1948 for Rs. 75,200 as being the license -fees for the same. Immediately on the taking of the contract picketing started at the instance of citizens of Dhar at the four liquor shops which were being run by the plaintiff. This adversely affected plaintiff's business. As a result of picketing the plaintiff could also not be supplied sufficient quantity of liquor required for his shops from the state godowns. The plaintiff thereupon approached Dhar Darbar with a prayer to cancel the outstanding contract due to the extraordinary circumstances aforesaid having cropped up and for starting the commission system (i.e. for the sale of liquor at the four shops by the plaintiff on commission basis) in place of the contract system as had been done in the past. The then Excise Commissioner, Dhar, Shree Chensingh, thereupon submitted the matter to the then Diwan Dhar with a recommendation that the outstanding contract might be cancelled and that the contractor might be charged at the rate of Rs. 3/ - per gallon for 'Rashi' and Rs. 6 per gallon for 'Dubara'. The matter was placed by the Diwan for consideration by the Council of which his Highness Maharaja Dhar was the president. Thereupon the Council in their meeting dated 28.6.1948 inter alia cancelled the aforesaid contract and sanctioned introduction of commission system for the entire period of the contract i.e. for the period from 1.10.1947 to 30.9.1948 as per recommendation of the Excise Commissioner Shree Chensingh. Subsequent to the Council resolution aforesaid the plaintiff continued to receive country liquor for sale at his four liquor shops upto the end of September 1948. But before that date the Dhar State merged into the State of Madhya Bharat on 30.6.1948. The District Excise Officer, Dhar of the newly formed State of Madhya Bharat rejected the plaintiff's stand as to his liability on the basis of commission system sanctioned by the Council resolution of the erstwhile Dhar State and made a demand of Rs. 31,072 on the basis of the original contract. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 4,000 on 24.9.1947 and Rs. 4,000 on 19.2.1948 out of which he had been given credit for Rs. 4,000 only. He becomes entitled to the credit of Rs. 4,000 more. The plaintiff claimed that due to sanction of commission system he was not liable for the aforesaid sum.

(3.) PLAINTIFF 's case with respect to these six items is as under: -