RAJESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise identical issues. These petitions are, therefore, decided by this common judgment. Pursuant to the sale notification issued by the District Magistrate, Rohtas the Petitioner had applied for licence for liquor shops in Rohtas District. Under the licence granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Rohtas four liquor shops were settled in favour of the Petitioner for the period from 1st July, 2004 to 31st March, 2005. For the said settlement the Petitioner had deposited security money in the sum of Rs. 1,45,828/-. After the expiry of period of licence the Petitioner demanded refund of the security deposit. Such refund was refused on 7th July, 2006 by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise on specious ground that the Petitioner's performance as a licensee was not satisfactory. The said order was confirmed on 4th December, 2007 by the Excise Commissioner in Excise Appeal Case No. 7 of 2007. The Commissioner of Excise observed that the Petitioner had failed to lift the Minimum Guaranteed Quota. On account of the said shortfall the State Exchequer had suffered loss of Excise Duty of Rs. 5,97,251/-. The Excise Commissioner relied upon the Circular Letter No. 928 dated 11th April, 2005 to reject the claim of the Petitioner. The said order has been confirmed by the Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 28th May, 2008 made in Rohtas Case No. 13 of 2008. It would not be out of place to mention here that even the Board of Revenue did not consider the shortfall a serious matter. It observed:

(2.) Feeling aggrieved the Petitioner has filed above C.W.J.C. No. 7501 of 2009.

(3.) For the said year 2004-05 the Petitioner had also applied for settlement of liquor shops in Kaimur District. Pursuant to his application the Assistant Commissioner of Excise settled five liquor shops in favour of the Petitioner. For the said five liquor shops the Petitioner had deposited security money in the sum of Rs. 6,58,800/-. After expiry of the period of licence the Petitioner applied for refund of the security money. The same was rejected on 7th July, 2006 by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise. The said order was confirmed on 4th December, 2007 by the Excise Commissioner in Excise Appeal Case No. 8 of 2007. The Excise Commissioner observed that the Petitioner had failed to lift the Minimum Guaranteed Quota. On account of his failure the State Exchequer had suffered loss of Excise Duty in the sum of Rs. 4,15,768/-. The Excise Commissioner relied upon the Circular Letter No. 928 dated 11th April, 2005 to reject the claim of the Petitioner. The said order was confirmed by the Board of Revenue on 27th May, 2008 in Kaimur Case No. 14 of 2008. It would not be out of place to mention here that even the Board of Revenue did not consider the shortfall a serious matter. It observed: