PRAKASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the demand notice dated 28.01.1991 (Annexure-7), issued under the signature of Incharge Superintendent of Excise, Bhojpur, Ara, whereby the original writ petitioner, Bipin Bihari Prasad, who died during the pendency of the present writ petition on 08.02.2004 and has been substituted by the order of this Court by the present petitioners, who happen to be his legal heirs, was directed to deposit Rs. 2,94, 250/- for compensating the revenue loss caused to the State of Bihar purportedly under the terms of agreement dated 22.03.1990. The original writ petitioner also challenged the order dated 10.09.1991 passed by the respondent- Excise Commissioner, Bihar ( Annexure-8), as also the resolution of the Board of Revenue dated 08.06.1994 ( Annexure-9), whereby the prayers made on behalf of the original writ petitioner for setting aside the demand notice dated 28.01.1991 ( Annexure-7) and for refund of advance licence fee and security amount, have been rejected.

(2.) The relevant facts essential for disposal of the present writ petition can be noticed as hereunder. The original writ petitioner was the licensee for Piro country spirit shop in the district of Bhojpur (hereinafter referred to as the shop in question for brevity) during the financial year 1989-90 on the monthly licence fee of Rs. 30,000/-. While the petitioner was still having the valid licence, the State Government came with a new policy decision on the basis of the recommendations made by a High Power Committee regarding settlement of retail vends of country liquor, spiced country liquor, and India made Foreign Liquor. The aforesaid policy decision of the State Government was communicated through a letter dated 8th February, 1990, issued by the Excise Commissioner and Secretary of the Government, which was addressed to all the District Collectors and Deputy Commissioners, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to the aforesaid revised policy decision the settlement of retail vends for the country liquor etc. was to be made for five years instead of one year and, accordingly, licensees of the year 1989-90 against whom there was no complaint and any arrear of the Government, their licences were required to be renewed for five years, i.e., for the year 1990- 91 to the year 1994-95 with certain conditions particularly regarding enhancement of 10% of licence fee per annum and 5% enhancement of minimum guaranteed quota.

(3.) It is the common case of the parties that as the original writ petitioner was licence- holder of the retail vend at Piro during the financial year 1989-90, he made an offer to take settlement of the shop in question for five years as per conditions mentioned in the revised policy decision dated 08.02.1990 (Annexure-1). It is also admitted case of the parties that an agreement was signed by the original writ petitioner at one side and the competent authority of the respondent-State at the other side on 22.03.1990 for renewal of his licence for five years, where-after the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,98,000/- as advance licence fee for six months and Rs. 30,000/- as security amount. However, despite the agreement signed on 22.03.1990 licence was never issued to the original writ petitioner for the financial year 1990-91 commencing w.e.f. 01.04.1990.