AMAR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. A suit being Money Suit No. 8/80 was filed for realisation of Rs. 75,900/- and the suit was dismissed by the Learned Sub-ordinate Judge, West Tripura on 20.12.1982. The suit was dismissed by taking of two issues as preliminary issue. They are :

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows :

(3.) That the plaintiff since 1957 engaged himself as an Excise Wholesale Contractor for Supply of Country Liquor on obtaining a licence under the Tripura Excise Rule, 1962. That on 13th day of March, 1968 there was an agreement in writing entered into between the plaintiff and the Government of Tripura whereupon he was appointed as the Contractor of the warehouse at Agartala for supply or rectified spirit for the Government of Tripura to the Excise vendors of Tripura for a period of 5(five) years from 1.4.1968 to 31st March, 1973 on the terms and conditions specified in the said agreement and also in the licence; which was issued in favour of the plaintiff on 13.3.1968 by the District Magistrate & Collector, Tripura, According to the plaintiff, as per the terms of the said licence the plaintiff deposited on or about 22.1.68 a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as the security and he also supplied empty galvanised drums 350 in number to the defendants for which of course he was entitled to receive rents. Moreover, he had to establish as required by the said licence a warehouse at Agartala for storage is bond wholesale bond of country liquor to be procured by import from outside the Territory of Tripura. Thereafter he had been carrying the work as Contractor of the wares-house regularly in the compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the licence. But the Collector of Excise, i.e., the defendant No.. 2, by his order dated 5.7.70 i.e. before the expiry of the period of his (plaintiff) licence, had wrongfully withdrawn the licence granted to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff submitted his claims for refund of the security deposited and for payment of the sums which he was entitled by submitting bills the amount to which was Rs. 1.18.767.01. The particulars of the plaintiff's claim in that bills has been detailed in paragraph 10 of the plaint. It is further stated that the Excise Commissioner provisionally accepted the claims Of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 57, 757.68 and ordered for payment of the said sum after settlement of the Government's claim, if any, from the plaintiff, by his letter dated 24.3.1977 which was addressed to the plaintiff. That was followed by another letter from collector of Excise, West Tiripura dated 5.4.1978 which also informed the plaintiff that his claim shall be paid upon settlement of outstanding Government dues from the plaintiff and in/ormed him that the details of the said alleged claim can be had from the office of the Excise Commissioner, Tripura. Thereafter the plaintiff alleges that he requested the Collector of Excise, Tripura by a letter dated 10th, April, 1978 to furnish the details of the alleged Government dves and also for finalising the matter and payment of the plaintiffs claim. Several reminders in that line were also sent by the plaintiff but to no effect. Then the plaintiff stated that the Under Secretary of the Governement of Tripura vide his letter dated 28.5.79 raised some allegations against the plaintiff, regarding causing loss of excise revenue to the Government of Tripura during his tenure. This allegation, according to the plaintiff is totally false. To that letter the plaintiff gave his reply on 7.6.79 and explained the position w.hile denying the charges brought against him. But even after that the defendants failed and neglected to pay the claims of the plaintiff on the plea of adjustment of Government dues. Now according to the plaintiff the cause of action for his present suit has arisen on and from 20.5.79 due to non-payment of the plaintiff's claim on false allegation of loss caused to the State Excise revenue by the plaintiff, and also from the fact of non consideration of the plaintiff's explanation given on 7.6.79. The plaintiff has also stated that as required he had duly served notice under Section 80 C.P.C. upon the defendants and the defendants also received that notice. The plaintiff claims for money decree for Rs. 57,757.68 with interest 10% per annum since 24.3.77 to 22.5.80 and another reliefs.