KHURSHEED ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.7.1999 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate of the district of Saran in Excise Case No. 1 of 1996 (Khurshid Alam v. Excise Superintendent, Saran, Chapra), whereby he has declined to grant remission of the licence fee for the period 9.9.1985 to 3.10.1985, and 4.11.1985 to 25.11.1985.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The Petitioner was the holder of excise licence under the provisions of Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for retail vend of country liquor. During the periods in question, the State Government had undertaken upon itself to supply country liquor to the licensees for retail vend of the same. During the periods in question, the State Government was unable to supply country liquor to a large number of such licensees including the Petitioner. The matter ultimately reached the Board of Revenue at the instance of various licensees. By a detailed, reasoned order dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure-1-A), the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, allowed the revision application in Case No. 604 of 1985 (Gulan Shakir v. The Department of Excise), It the instance of a similarly circumstanced person, wherein it was held that the State Government was liable to refund the licence fee for the period(s) country liquor was not supplied to them, and shall be adjusted against the future dues of that Petitioner. The Petitioner's revision application was registered as Revision Case No. 531 of 1985 (Khurshid Alam v. The Department of Excise and Ors.), was taken up analogously with the said Rev. Case No. 604 of 1985, and was allowed by order dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure-1, in terms of the said order dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure-1A, passed in Revision Case No. 604 of 1985).

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Collector has failed to realize that the Petitioner's own case was allowed by order dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure-1), in terms of the detailed discussion and the reasons assigned in the order dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure-1/A). These two orders have to be read together, which were never challenged and attained finality. We think that the two orders attained finality, not having been challenged by the parties, the order of this Court of 17.9.1997, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1997, could not have been applied to the Petitioner's case, having been passed in the case of a different person. There appears to be an illegality apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 19.7.1999 (Annexure-3). The same is hereby set aside, and we direct the learned Collector to follow the order dated 29.9.1986 (Annexure-1), passed in Revision Case No. 531 of 1985, read with the order dated 29.9.1986, passed in Revision Case No. 604 of 1985.