LAKHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter relates to a business dealing with country liquor under the provincial Excise Laws. The order being passed today, that is the present one, is only in continuance of the order which was passed on 8.3.2000. Between selecting suitors who may be granted the special privilege to vend excisable goods i.e. country liquor, the court found that no set norms were acted upon to select or reject. When the Excise Commissioner, Bihar and the Board was not prepared to grant the special privilege to the petitioner and finding that there were contradictions within the State, the court was left with no choice but to direct the learned Government Advocate to file an affidavit of the Chief Secretary, Bihar. The court had indicated that the Chief Secretary would either verify the earlier counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State or may file a fresh affidavit. Earlier, it came on the record of the State that a Member, Board of Revenue had got the impression that the grant of special privilege to the petitioner by the Excise Commissioner was on the basis of an observation made by the High Court. Finding that the justification for having passed an order in granting the special privilege in a non -existent observation, this court directed that the Member, Board of Revenue owes an explanation to the court. A show cuase was thus issued to the Member, Board of Revenue. In these circumstances the order of 8.3.2000 will form part of this order.

(2.) HAVING heard the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and having perused the affidavit which has been filed by the Chief Secretary as also his report dated 29.3.2000 which is appended as Annexure -P to the affidavit, the court finds that the Chief Secretary has fairly recorded that notwithstanding the fact that the Member, Board of Revenue had directed that the petitioner Lakhan Lal be given the special privilege to vend in country liquor, yet the Excise Department had not taken a decision to act on this direction of the Member, Board of Revenue. This in fact was the piquant situation which has been noticed by the court in its earlier order dated 8.3.2000.

(3.) /1/2013 Page 131 "5. That I say and submit that the respondent State will obey the order/orders that may be passed by this Hon 'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. The issue plainly is on what exactly the writ petition is about. It is not in every case that the High Court is obliged to pass orders or in fact mandatory orders in its writ jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner on the writ petition is that despite the direction of the Member, Board of Revenue, the Excise Commissioner, Bihar would not grant him Jahanabad Nagar Palika Kardatee Sangrah Samiti Versus State Of Bihar the licence. The main plank of the petitioner 'scase is the direction which has been given by the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioner does not seem to rely so much on the aspect whether he qualifies as a person to be granted a licence under the law.